OpenLobby.EU
Explore

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions

IFLA

IFLA is the leading international body representing library and information services.

Lobbying Activity

Library groups urge recognition as essential digital inclusion infrastructure

9 Jan 2026
Topic — The Commission is reviewing the Digital Decade Policy Programme's progress and targets.
Message — The main request is to recognize libraries as essential infrastructure for digital access. They seek protections against unfair contracts for institutions that support research and culture. The initiative should focus on empowering individuals through local community support.123
Why — Formal recognition would integrate libraries more effectively into wider European policy agendas.4
Impact — Digital content providers could be restricted from applying unfair terms to library services.5
Read full response

IFLA calls for library protection against unfair digital contracts

24 Oct 2025
Topic — The consultation aims to tackle problematic digital practices and unfair commercial contract terms.
Message — The federation requests extending consumer protections to libraries to prevent unfair digital contract terms. They advocate for a right of access on reasonable terms and the ability to bypass restrictive technological measures.123
Why — Libraries would achieve stronger bargaining power and lower costs for acquiring digital content.45
Impact — Content publishers lose the power to unilaterally restrict access and impose high licensing fees.67
Read full response

Response to New European Bauhaus

16 Oct 2025

This response is submitted on behalf of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, and in particular its Europe Regional Division Committee. Libraries play a unique and varied role in our communities, providing equitable access to information resources, responsive programming to match needs, and non-commercial spaces open for all. We strongly welcome the Commissions intention to take forwards and strengthen the New European Bauhaus project, which represents an important step towards a more coherence approach, focused on the lived experience of people. In particular, we would like to highlight our agreement with the following objectives as referenced in the consultation document, where we believe that there is significant potential to make a positive difference, including by mobilising libraries more systematically. 1. Building resilience in neighbourhoods as a driver of sustainability: the impact of investments in the built environment are unlocked and multiplied when accompanied by a focus on people, developing the skills, attitudes and collections necessary to cope with change successfully. Libraries are experienced in providing this, allowing for social capital formation and connections. 2. Taking a community-wide approach to local transformation, drawing on a stronger and deeper evidence-base: Iinked to the above, we hope that the future Recommendations on the New European Bauhaus will underline that regeneration of buildings must be accompanied by an effort to transform communities as well. Ensuring that regeneration includes adequate provision of community spaces such as libraries will help in this regard. 3. Advancing participatory and democratic design as a means of boosting grassroots engagement: libraries have long focused on providing access to knowledge as an essential precondition for social, cultural and democratic participation. We applaud the emphasis on this in the consultation document, and hope that libraries will be seen even more as an infrastructure for achieving this in future. 4. A consistent prioritisation of social inclusion as a goal. While not explicitly named as an objective, we understand that this is implicit across the programme. Nonetheless, a clear reference will be helpful in guiding future decision-making.
Read full response

Library federation demands data access rights for researchers

14 Oct 2025
Topic — The European Commission is proposing a digital package to simplify regulations for businesses.
Message — The federation requests that researchers and libraries receive the same data access rights and legal protections as businesses. They also call for research publications to be included in the Open Data Directive.12
Why — Expanding open data rules would significantly increase the volume of research materials available to libraries.3
Impact — Commercial data providers would lose leverage by being banned from using unfair contractual terms.4
Read full response

Response to European Innovation Act

3 Oct 2025

This response comes from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, in the context of its administration of the Knowledge Rights 21 programme. Libraries represent a key infrastructure for research, enabling this through providing possibilities to access, draw on and apply existing knowledge in order to develop new ideas. They have been and continue to be at the heart of the drive to advance open access and science, as well as supporting wider institutional agendas around knowledge valorisation and collaboration. Our key points are as follows: 1) The European Innovation Act should establish as a principle that any regulatory measures designed to enable the work of innovative SMEs should also benefit research institutions. Too often, measures are developed which provide a better deal for companies than for the universities and other centres from which they come. Any definition of innovation or review of the Innovation Principle should reflect this point. 2) In particular, we believe that the European Innovation Act should include a definition of Open Innovation, a practice which is for example well established in the automotive industry as a means of accelerating progress and reach of new ideas. Any such reference should explicitly connect to Open Science, which is an established principle and policy goal of the European Union. 3) The European Innovation Act should recognise the importance of access to research information and data, and establish a principle that innovative businesses should have a presumption of access to publicly funded research results. In particular in this respect, it should be clear that data and publications from such research should be immediately available from the time of first publication, under a licence that does not preclude uses by companies (for example through the application of non-commercial licences). The alternative is a situation where only richer companies are able to access this information with the relevant permissions, disadvantaging newcomers. The Act should complement the upcoming European Research Area Act in this respect, which should implement a Secondary Publication Right. 4) In line with the European Research and Technology Infrastructures Strategy, the Act should take any relevant steps to enshrine the principle of access to such infrastructures in law. 5) The European Innovation Act should remove barriers to collaborations between innovative companies and research institutions, as well as the work of spin-offs, by ensuring that they do not face undue restrictions or discrimination when working with information resources held by libraries. Currently, Europes copyright exception (Article 5(3)(a), Directive 2001/29/EC) actively works against this by excluding any type of commercial research, regardless of whether this has any impact on the market for original works. This represents a tax on research and innovation, considering that any copyright works being used have already been paid for or otherwise lawfully accessed or acquired. It is also directly contradictory to the EUs emphasis on knowledge valorisation and commercialisation. While recognising that a wider copyright reform is beyond the scope of this Act, we argue that it would be beneficial to provide a clarification that collaborative research projects and activities carried out within the context of a public or otherwise public interest research institution (with all of the accompanying rules and protocols) are able to avail themselves of the exception.
Read full response

Meeting with Emmanuelle Du Chalard (Head of Unit Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

24 Sept 2025 · Latest developments in copyright policy

IFLA urges EU to label scholarly publishers as digital gatekeepers

23 Sept 2025
Topic — The European Commission is reviewing rules to ensure contestable and fair digital markets.
Message — IFLA proposes extending the gatekeeper definition to include academic publishers that control scholarly communication. They argue these platforms exert significant power over researchers through vertical integration and prestige.12
Why — This would allow libraries and researchers to challenge the dominance of large publishers.34
Impact — Large academic publishers would face tougher regulations on their pricing and data practices.56
Read full response

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

17 Sept 2025 · 28th Regime

Response to European Research Area (ERA) Act

10 Sept 2025

IFLA is the global organisation for libraries, and administers the Knowledge Rights 21 Programme, which promotes the right to research in a digital age. The EUs >6000 academic libraries represent a core research infrastructure, enabling researchers to access and use knowledge to learn and innovate. They are on the front line of the interaction between information law and research policy. We strongly welcome the proposed ERA Act as an opportunity to address issues in the existing acquis, and to introduce targeted new steps. We see the following as areas where EU-level legislative action has a particularly unique potential, based on the attached bibliography of KR21-commissioned outputs. 1) Barriers to productive and collaborative research The gap between what European researchers expect copyright to do, and what it actually does, is growing. The current research exception is confusing and optional: some researchers still have no specific rights in law. It enforces an unworkable discrimination between commercial and non-commercial research, preventing collaboration and undermining EU investments in knowledge valorisation. Differences in national laws prevent clarity around cross-border collaborations, while their rigidity inhibits the uptake of new technologies. Finally, the current exception is not protected against override by contract terms or abuse of technological protection measures (TPMs). This imposes costs and distorts practice. Collaborative, inclusive, and high-performing research needs a harmonised and flexible copyright exception, as successfully adopted elsewhere, covering all types of material and rights, and meaningfully protected against contract terms and TPMs. 2) Slow and uneven progress towards equitable, sustainable and universal open access While progress towards universal open access has been strong in some countries and disciplines, this is not the case everywhere. The promotion of gold OA models has consolidated market power, and tended to favour outputs in English, and from wealthier institutions (although even these are starting to walk away from such agreements). Meanwhile, poorer, independent, and less well-connected researchers as well as start-ups struggle to access the materials they need. Even when researchers wish to publish openly, or have a funder mandate, they have limited power in the face of publishers who control access to the journals in which they feel they are pressured to publish. While some countries have embraced Secondary Publishing Rights (SPRs), these are not harmonised, and have been only partially implemented. Rights retention strategies have proven helpful in countries where they have become established, but are not yet a reality for most. Researchers and institutions need stronger guarantees of their right to publish immediately in repositories, with provisions covering the full range of scientific outputs: an EU SPR, aligned with good practice in Bulgaria and Slovenia. In parallel, action is needed to ensure that EU and national laws and policies actively favour the development of rights retention policies. 3) An uneven playing field with major commercial publishers The scholarly publishing industry has a business model based on selling to institutions. However, these institutions do not enjoy the same protection against unfair contract terms as consumers, despite limited possibilities for negotiation. This matters in a digital age, the terms of contracts, not exceptions in law, determine what a library and its researchers can do. Too often, institutions simply cannot licence materials (from scholarly and other publishers), and face terms that would be illegal under EU consumer law if offered to individuals. In order to counteract the restrictive, chilling effect of these behaviours, the ERA Act should confirm the special status of research institutions and their libraries, protecting them against unfair contract terms and unlimited liabilities.
Read full response

International Federation of Libraries urges simplified data access rules

16 Jul 2025
Topic — Strategy to streamline data rules and create a coherent legal framework for data sharing.
Message — The federation requests a clear assertion that data is not subject to copyright. They urge expanding the Data Act to allow researchers access to third-party data. They also recommend secondary publication rights for publicly funded research.123
Why — This would increase the volume of high-quality data available for scientific research.45
Impact — Major commercial rightholders lose the ability to restrict access through content bundling.6
Read full response

Library Federation urges copyright reform to boost AI infrastructure

5 Jun 2025
Topic — The consultation addresses EU gaps in cloud and AI infrastructure capacity and investment.
Message — The organization calls for flexible copyright laws and a Europe-wide right to republish publicly funded research immediately. They advocate for removing barriers between commercial and non-commercial research to maximize data sharing for AI development.123
Why — Flexible laws would simplify technical compliance and reduce costs for data infrastructure providers.45
Impact — Proprietary publishers lose control over research distribution as their restrictive business models are challenged.67
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Mandl (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Jun 2025 · Copyright and AI

Response to A European Strategy for AI in science – paving the way for a European AI research council

30 May 2025

To ensure that the EU is world-class in its adoption of AI for the sciences, it requires not only investment in technical infrastructures and skills, but creating an appropriate legal environment that effectively supports AI development, from basic research through to the market, including university-industry collaborations (PPPs). The existing EU copyright regime does the opposite. Science strategy must address the challenges facing AI researchers and innovators: 1. EU AI copyright law doesnt adequately support basic research or commercial machine learning it also promotes poor AI models Art 3 of the CDSM Directive does not allow the proportionate sharing of legally acquired information between university partners or even hospitals for the purpose of AI. It also creates no timely mechanisms to access information where prevented by technological protection measures. Furthermore, sharing training data / outputs with commerical partners is unlawful. i.e.PPPs Art 4s reservation of rights encourages opt-outs, and so the obligation on commercial researchers / PPPs to relicense information (e.g. websites, journal articles etc) which they or their organisation have already licensed or have legal access to. This creates huge inefficiencies / barriers to innovation which our competitors do not have. It also creates an unfair advantage for the largest actors in AI markets. Despite the need for responsible/safe AI, the need to relicense data reduces the volume of data a model can train on, thus increasing the risk of bias and poor model prediction compared to models created outside of Europe. (see article attached) Solution: Clarify that organisations can carry out training using all data which they have already licensed or to which they already have legal access. Ensure that access cannot be overridden by contract, and that there are effective means in place to remove relevant technological protection measure 2. Outdated commercial vs. non-commercial distinction in EU Copyright law hinders AI development Unlike our competitors laws, and the political and budgetary emphasis given to research partnerships, the EU copyright regime does not adequately support PPPs or commercial AI where it involves research. This creates significant barriers for economic growth and innovation, driving high-potential researchers and innovative businesses to countries with more modern copyright systems. Solution: Like many of our competitors, EU copyright law should remove the artificial distinction between non-commercial and commercial research. Such a law would much better reflect the way scientific research, R&D and the STEM sectors work today. 3. Maximise Access to Data Introduce a Secondary Publishing Right A further way to support AI and science, is to maximise access to high-quality data by introducing a Europe-wide secondary publishing right. 80% of research is publicly funded. By mandating immediate access to publicly funded research irrespective of where first published, under open licences, we can create a high quality body of data that scientists, PPPs, SMEs can freely use. Conclusion Like our competitors, the EU must align its legal frameworks with todays research and innovation landscape, where collaboration between academia, startups and industry is essential. A balanced legal framework will enable scientific advancements to translate into concrete benefits across industries and sectors, empowering European startups and innovators to drive responsible AI development and stimulate economic growth. About KR21: KR21 works to bring about changes in legislation and practice across Europe that will strengthen the right of all to access and apply knowledge for the benefit of research, science and society at large.
Read full response

Response to Apply AI Strategy

30 May 2025

To keep pace with North America and East Asia, Europe must ensure it can compete on an equal footing. This requires not only investment in technical infrastructures and skills, but creating an appropriate legal environment that effectively supports AI development, from basic research through to the market, including university-industry collaborations (PPPs). The existing EU copyright regime does the opposite. The strategy must address the challenges facing researchers and innovators: 1. Outdated commercial vs. non-commercial distinction in EU Copyright law hinders AI development Unlike our competitors laws, and the political and budgetary emphasis given to research partnerships, the EU copyright regime does not adequately support PPPs or commercial AI where it involves research. This creates significant barriers for economic growth and innovation, driving high-potential researchers and innovative businesses to countries with better adapted copyright systems. Solution: Like many of our competitors, EU copyright law should remove the artificial distinction between non-commercial and commercial research. Such a law would much better reflect the way scientific research, R&D and the STEM sectors work today. 2. EU AI copyright law doesnt adequately support basic research or commercial machine learning it also promotes poor AI models Art 3 of the CDSM Directive does not facilitate the proportionate sharing of legally acquired information between university partners or even hospitals for the purpose of AI. It also creates no timely mechanisms to access information where this is being prevented by technological protection measures. Furthermore, as outlined above sharing data with private partners is unlawful. Art 4s reservation of rights encourages opt-outs, and so the obligation on commercial researchers to relicense information (e.g. websites, journal articles etc) which they or their organisation has already licensed or have legal access to. This creates huge economic inefficiencies / barriers to innovation which our competitors do not have. It also creates an unfair advantage for the largest actors in AI markets. Despite the need for responsible and safe AI, by reducing the volume of data a model can train on, it also increases the risk of bias and poor model prediction compared to models created outside of Europe. Solution: Clarify that organisations can carry out training using all data which they have already licensed or to which they already have legal access. Ensure that access cannot be overridden by contract, and that there are effective means in place to remove relevant technological protection measure 3. Maximise Access to Data Introduce a Secondary Publishing Right In addition to the above solutions, a further way to support AI by maximising access to data is by introducing a Europe-wide secondary publishing right. 80% of research is publicly funded. By mandating immediate access to publicly funded research irrespective of where first published, under open licences, we can create a high quality body of data that an SME, startup or PPP can freely use. Conclusion Like our competitors, the EU must align its legal frameworks with todays research and innovation landscape, where collaboration between academia, startups and industry is essential. A balanced legal framework will enable scientific advancements to translate into concrete benefits across industries and sectors, empowering European startups and innovators to drive responsible AI development and stimulate economic growth. About KR21: KR21 works to bring about changes in legislation and practice across Europe that will strengthen the right of all to access and apply knowledge for the benefit of research, science and society at large. See attachment on the link between an inflexible copyright regime like that of the EU and poor model predictions. "A Levendowski How Copyright Law Can Fix Artificial Intelligence's Implicit Bias Problem"
Read full response

Response to Policy agenda for cities

26 May 2025

This response is submitted on behalf of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, and is based on the strong previous engagement of libraries in the EUs Urban Policy (https://www.urbanagenda.urban-initiative.eu/sites/default/files/2024-03/Action_5_Booklet.pdf). We appreciate the emphasis in the consultation document on the value of focus, accessibility, reflecting needs, good governance, and listening, and believe that this provides a strong basis for an approach which realises the potential of libraries and in particular public libraries to support sustainable urban development. Many of the essential ingredients of sustainable urban development the basic literacy and other skills necessary for participation, the digital literacy needed to make the most of smart cities, the spaces necessary for exchange and cohesion, and much more are primarily delivered through libraries. In this respect, we note the work taking place under the Culture Work Programme 2023-2025, which will deliver a strong evidence base around the impact of mobilising libraries in order to achieve wider policy goals consistent with the Urban Agenda. Concerning the value of organising and streamlining existing EU support, we note the importance of designing programmes in ways that enable libraries and library services to engage easily. Such efforts should recognise the limited resources available to many public libraries, as well as the fact that they already exist in a regulated environment obliging compliance with norms of good management and administration. We encourage the consideration of dedicated programming for public libraries, given their significant cross-cutting role, delivering on goals from democracy to digital inclusion, and from health and wellbeing to skills for work. Programmes focused only on specific themes may not on their own be enough to realise the potential of libraries to deliver on plural goals. In order to ensure stronger recognition of the experience and needs of cities, we would recommend providing a space for the voice of public libraries to be integrated into all relevant planning. Finally, concerning the design of the support mechanism, we note: · Our readiness to contribute to reflections on experience so far, and in particular the unique ability of libraries to take a holistic approach to assessing the impacts of different urban policy interventions · Our support for efforts to reduce administrative burdens, while maintaining a focus on impactful spending · The value of investing in libraries, given their flexibility as spaces and actors to respond to emerging needs.
Read full response

Response to International Digital Strategy

21 May 2025

Libraries represent a very significant part of the global infrastructure for internet access, representing either the only - or a complementary - means of realising digital incusion. At the local level, they are already regularly recognised as being the key channel for achieving digital inclusion goals. Yet this potential is not yet being fully realised. We believe that the EU's international digital strategy can help address this challenge. We therefore hope that the strategy can reflect the following points: 1) Libraries can help drive inclusive growth in many different ways. As trusted anchor community institutions they are ideal partners for other actors in this space, providing equitable, low-barrier access points for information as well as help accessing government services such as education, health platforms, public service portals, payments and many others. We believe that the strategy should ensure that any definition of internet infrastructures includes public access centres such as libraries, and that they are recognised as 'on-ramps' to digital public infrastructures as a whole. 2) Media Literacy - library networks can be crucial partners in particular in the process of helping communities understand the benefits and risks of the use of such technologies. Digital literacy is crucial to enhance tech competitiveness and library networks and staff across Europe have extensive experience delivering this type of trainings or capacity building. We recommend making media/digital literacy and capacity building for AI and emerging technologies a core part of the strategy, and referencing the value of mobilising libraries within this. 3) Building the capacity of library sectors to fulfil their potential here - national libraries, national library services and library associations can be key intermediates that can help coordinate efforts, mobilise energies and deliver training and ongoing support. It will be worth not only highlighting their role, but also considering how to build lasting capacity for delivering digital inclusion in an ongoing world. 4) Libraries as a testing ground for existing and emerging technologies - in the EU's international work, libraries can play an important role in programmes looking to help different communities to interact effectively with technologies. This will also support collaborative and community-centric appraoches to identifying and deploying more human centered and ethical technologies and modes of engagement with them. 5) Policy coherence for digital: the potential for the uptake of digital technologies in library settings - for research, education, preservation and more - is often help up by uncertainty around what is permissible under law. Libraries globally should be able to benefit from the same permissive laws as those in Europe. We would recommend that the EU's approach to copyright at WIPO be aligned with the global goal of helping libraries to fulfl their potential as drivers of digital inclusion globally. 6) Finally, we strongly encourage the European Union to continue with its support for a multistakeholder model of internet goverannce, notably through the Internet Governance Forum. With many governments taking an increasingly authoritarian turn, the EU's voice will be powerful here. We are of course happy to share more about any of the above themes.
Read full response

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament)

19 May 2025 · FP10

Response to A Culture Compass for Europe

12 May 2025

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) welcomes the European Commission's call for evidence in preparing the new strategic framework for EU cultural policy. We welcome the Culture Compass as an opportunity to assert culture both as a goal in itself, and as an enabler of the EU's wider agenda. The whole arts, culture and heritage sector brings ideas, experience, energy and imagination to solving the challenges that Europe faces. We believe that the EU can have a leading role in sharing and promoting its own approach to culture globally as well. In particular, in line with the IFLA-UNESCO Public and School Library Manifestoes, we see libraries as a unique enabler of democratic participation and citizen engagement. We believe that public, school and other libraries empower citizens to create a democratic, socially engaged and digitally inclusive Europe. In times of war and societal polarisation in Europe, it is time to acknowledge and reflect this role of libraries in cultural policy initiatives at EU level. European libraries, of all sizes and types, address contemporary societal challenges related to economic, societal and political developments throughout their programmes and activities. Their potential and strengths should be valued, enhanced and further developed. Therefore, we recommend to integrate a focus on libraries - and in particular public libraries - in the new EU Culture Compass. Libraries provide access to literature and other cultural works in a multitude of formats. They are gateways to knowledge and information, as well as important players in the field of non-formal education, offering digital, literacy and media upskilling to diverse groups of our society. Their function is pluriform and transversal, with the main constant being the power of information, knowledge and culture to change lives for the better. The OMC group Building bridges on the multiple roles of libraries under the current Council Work Plan for Culture investigates how public libraries in particular contribute to European development. The collection of over 400 case studies will provide evidence to showcase that public libraries are an essential public service and that their multiple roles are linked to overarching policy goals relating to health, education, digital transformation, science, economic development, social policies, democracy and participation and more. Other library types, similarly, draw on their roots as part of the cultural infrastructure of the community to build a diverse and effective offer of citizen-focused programming and services. We recommend harvesting from the outcomes of the OMC group and its recommendations and invite the European Commission to take into account the following points for the elaboration of the Culture Compass: A) Acknowledgement of libraries as an essential public service relating to the European Pillar of Social Rights, as well as delivery of cultural and other rights; B) Recognition of libraries as key partners in tackling social challenges, and for providing inclusive and equitable lifelong learning and economic resilience; C) Promotion of libraries as democratic spaces for civic dialogue and participation Based on the above, we recommend to: 1) Support a focus on culture having a role in delivering wider policy goals, citing libraries as a model of this at work; 2) In line with G20 Culture Ministers' statements, confirm the EU's support for a dedicated culture goal in any future cross-cutting development agendas (the post-2030 agenda) 3) Promote focused and ongoing gathering and sharing of experience and knowledge among libraries, connecting to the action on libraries under the current EU work plan for culture. 4) Protect public libraries and help them to fight against restrictions, providing meaningful protections against those who are hostile to intellectual freedom.
Read full response

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

24 Apr 2025 · R&D, EU competitiveness

Response to EU Start-up and Scale-up Strategy

17 Mar 2025

This response is submitted by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions on behalf of the Knowledge Rights 21 campaign. The campaign brings together European and international library organisations and independent experts with a focus on ensuring that law and policy in Europe supports research, education and cultural participation in a digital age. The response is the result of consultation across our community of national coordinators, covering over 20 European countries, as well as individual librarians. Our responses reflect the experience of libraries which, as part of initiatives to support spin-offs and research-industry collaborations (as often mandated by institutions and governments) witness barriers to access to knowledge for start-ups and scale-ups. Concerning question 1, we believe that access to knowledge certainly is a problem. Given that work both to support (future) spin-offs and research-industry collaborations can easily be considered as commercial, any provision preventing commercial working is likely to have a chilling effect. This is backed up by the contributions received from individual librarians, who often simply find themselves needing to refuse access to materials in such situations, given the uncertainty faced otherwise. Crucially, rightholders appear to be shifting towards a model of licensing that is less friendly toward such working, as explained in more depth in the attached document. Similarly, when libraries become aware of use of walk-in resources by SMEs, they are obliged to tell them to stop. More information appears in our full annex. A final point to underline is that these are challenges not just for start-ups and scale-ups themselves, but also for the research institutions that support them, in line with wider institutional and governmental priorities. It will be important, where action is taken, to ensure that institutions are also given rights and protections as appropriate otherwise they will be poorly placed to continue to provide support. Concerning question 2, we note that even when regulation should support collaborations, definitions can be hard to apply in practice. More detail is given in our longer response. Concerning question 3, we recommend a more flexible copyright exception for research, based on principles rather than prescriptions, and which determines fairness on the grounds, notably, of whether a use causes harm to rightholders. This of course would still be predicated on legitimate access to information in the first place. Such a proposal is also discussed in the DG RTD study cited above. Such a norm should be backed up by clear protections for universities, research institutions and their libraries against contract terms which would forbid non-harmful commercial uses, as well as the over-application of technological protection measures. There should also be consideration of how to offer consumer-type protections for institutions against disadvantageous contract terms in general, and protection against liabilities when acting reasonably and in good faith. Secondly, we would support further work to support open access. Concerning publicly funded research, we favour rapid moves to introduce a secondary publication right, which would offer researchers protection in making their work immediately openly available (as proposed by the Council Conclusions of 23 May 2023, under an open licence. This would complement existing open access mandates included in many public funding programmes by giving researchers and institutions the means necessary to reject or disapply more restrictive terms offered by publishers. We note that the RTD study shows no great opposition to such a step among non-profit or institutional publishers. Finally, we would recommend that in any steps taken to support start-ups and scale-ups, there be reflection on which elements can be extended to facilitate the work of research institutions.
Read full response

Meeting with Kirsi Haavisto (Head of Unit Research and Innovation)

17 Feb 2025 · Knowledge valorisation and intellectual property management

Meeting with Michael Arentoft (Head of Unit Research and Innovation)

20 Jan 2025 · Economic analysis of possible ERA action 2 measures (an EU copyright and data legislative and regulatory framework fit for research)

Meeting with Marc Angel (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Dec 2024 · Research and Innovation

Meeting with Sebastian Tynkkynen (Member of the European Parliament) and Public Libraries 2030

5 Nov 2024 · Kirjastoalan ajankohtaiset aiheet

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Oct 2024 · Exchange on the European Copyright Framework

Meeting with Tomasz Frankowski (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Disability Forum and

21 Mar 2023 · The future of the European book sector-consultation meeting with stakeholders

Response to Digital Services Act: deepening the Internal Market and clarifying responsibilities for digital services

30 Jun 2020

1. IFLA defends and promotes freedom of speech and freedom of access to information, as set out in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the basis of intellectual freedom. The last three decades have seen the rise of digital tools (including major platforms) which have made it possible to amplify the dissemination of knowledge and information, facilitate the discoverability of contents. These tools have also made it possible for users to share their own contents, rather than having to pass through a gatekeeper. Library professionals build on the ability of platforms to function effectively, not just to facilitate access, but also given the possibilities they offer to promote users’ creativity, or help them network more effectively. This represents an important step forwards that must not be jeopardised by hasty or clumsy regulation. In particular, as a signatory to the Manila Principles, IFLA defends that intermediary platforms should not a priori be held liable for content posted by third parties. IFLA continues to believe that creating incentives for intermediary platforms to take down content without independent judicial authority and other reasons to protect legitimate activities risks harming freedom of expression and freedom of access to information for all citizens. In the case of removal of illegal content from platforms, it seems necessary to establish _ clarity on the procedures to follow. As we have seen in the case of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, it is vital that any regulation does not oblige or incentivise platforms to restrict free speech or other fundamental freedoms. _ Ensure that under any new rules brought in under the DSA, users should in any normal situation be given the benefit of the doubt, and unless there is clear and irrefutable evidence of harm, their content left up until it is possible to carry out a human review. 2. The emergence of a wide variety of illegal, hateful, violent content online has been identified as a threat. This content is extremely diverse, focusing on different groups of individuals and coming in different forms. The term hate speech itself has also been co-opted by some in order to justify suppression of legitimate criticism. Similarly, too hasty an effort to block ‘fake news’ can lead to collateral damage to legitimate speech - education and flagging often offer more proportionate solutions. As such, any legislative response needs to focus on effective but proportionate solutions. New regulation should: _ give due attention both to restricting harmful content and protecting fundamental rights. For example, it needs to be honest about the weaknesses of algorithmic tools in correctly identifying legitimate and illegitimate uses, not least in cases where organisations protecting stigmatised groups needing to denounce harmful contents, for example through the use of certain wording or imagery. _ develop human review as best practice to verify relevance and necessity of restrictions (especially related to filters), in particular that it is not content coming from an organization for the protection and defense of stigmatized individuals. _ frame the delegation of power to private platforms concerning the rights of expression and access to information with a judicial and independent entity counterbalancing the power given to the platforms, and ensuring that the incentives for platforms are not tipped in favour of taking content down regardless. _ take into account the reality of smaller platforms which are asked to adapt to the capacity of large stakeholders, without having the same capacities. _ define an extremely precise scope concerning the types of content to be removed and identify cases of legal content which could be considered as similar by algorithms and therefore blocked.
Read full response

Response to Digital Services Act package: ex ante regulatory instrument of very large online platforms acting as gatekeepers

30 Jun 2020

Libraries have seen the evolution of digital tools for several decades. Like many cultural institutions, they have implemented digital strategies to promote and publicize their collection among their users and beyond, in particular through social networks. The level of concentration in the market - driven by the network effects benefitting the largest networks - has meant that many libraries are heavily dependent on certain networks to be able to communicate with their users and audiences. As a result, it would benefit libraries, as well as consumers in general, to be able to work to ensure that consumers (including institutions such as libraries) can move freely to other networks, taking their data with them. This would make it easier for similar platforms to emerge with diverse policies regarding user data and relationships between members of the network. It would also allow a framework to be put in place allowing companies to compete on platforms. Secondly, we would suggest that any instrument should apply not just based on the overall turnover of platforms, but based on whether they hold a position of strength in any one sector. For example, this could be the case for library eLending, eBooks in general, or scholarly communications, where we are seeing examples of companies using vertical integration to build up data strengths that gives them both extensive power over competitors, and risks locking in researchers. In each of these cases, while platforms may appear small as a share of the overall economy, they can have a key role within each sector, enabling behaviours such as those detailed in the roadmap (withholding of data, unfair advantages in adjacent markets, risk of creating lock-in for customers) Finally, as a measure for promoting competition, we would encourage the Commission to reassess the rules that have excluded eBooks from rules on cross-border access to electronic content, which would, in particular, allow smaller European companies access to a wider market than their own home one. We would also recommend, in this regard, stronger steps to prevent (effectively) non-negotiable contract terms from taking away the rights of users.
Read full response

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

26 Jul 2016 · Copyright, e-lending, digital skills

Meeting with Szabolcs Horvath (Cabinet of Commissioner Tibor Navracsics) and European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations and Stichting Lezen & Schrijven

21 Jun 2016 · Digital Single Market

Meeting with Stig Joergen Gren (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip) and Stichting Lezen & Schrijven and Stichting eIFL.net

30 May 2016 · copyright