{"id":2156,"date":"2020-05-11T16:18:56","date_gmt":"2020-05-11T14:18:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/?p=2156"},"modified":"2020-05-29T14:10:55","modified_gmt":"2020-05-29T12:10:55","slug":"23-recommendations-on-creators-rights-what-are-the-issues-and-impacts-and-how-can-libraries-support-the-act-of-creation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/2020\/05\/11\/23-recommendations-on-creators-rights-what-are-the-issues-and-impacts-and-how-can-libraries-support-the-act-of-creation\/","title":{"rendered":"23 recommendations on creators’ rights: What are the issues and impacts and how can libraries continue supporting them?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lionel Maurel, librarian and lawyer in France, works at the French National Centre for Scientific Research<\/a> (CNRS) on open science<\/a>. For many years, he has been defending the interests of libraries on his blog S.I.LEX<\/a> by offering legal analysis to librarians concerning e-lending, copyright reforms and the public domain. This article presents his reflections from the Racine report<\/a> on the impacts of the current copyright system on the rights of artists and creators and the link with libraries. (French version below)<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Here are the Racine Report recommendations. <\/a>The 23 recommendations translated in English.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Could you explain to us what the Racine report is and the context of its production?<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This is a report submitted to the Ministry of Culture in January 2020. Entitled “The author and the act of creation<\/a>“, it was prepared by Bruno Racine, adviser at the Court of Accounts, who directed the National Library of France<\/a> from 2007 to 2016. It contains 23 recommendations aimed at improving the situation of authors and creators (henceforce \u2018artists-authors\u2019) by adapting the regulatory framework to the new realities of the creative professions.<\/span><\/div>\n
The origin of this report is to be found in the strong mobilization of authors in France, which has lasted for several years, in reaction to a continuous deterioration of their living conditions. In 2017, a tax reform took place, which further weakened a large share of authors who were already fighting against insecurity. To cope, artist-authors have chosen to act by relying on unions, which is fairly new in France. Traditionally, the interests of authors are in fact rather represented by collecting societies.<\/span><\/div>\n
The Racine report commission intervened to try to resolve an increasingly explosive situation, with calls from professional writers to boycott large bookfairs to draw attention to their situation. Drawn up after extensive consultation, the Racine report was eagerly awaited and it paints a grim picture of the situation of authors in France. In certain sectors such as comics and graphic novels, despite its economic growth, almost a third of authors live below the poverty line and the rate rises to 50% for women. France is often presented as “the country of copyright”, but this reputation hides a deep crisis situation for creators.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
What analysis can be made of the recommendations in this report?<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The greatest contribution of this report is to show that the authors’ livelihood does not depend solely on copyright, but on a much more complex institutional arrangement, where questions of taxation and social protection play a decisive role. It also shows that artist-authors do not have a real professional status, as if their activity did not constitute a profession in their own right. To remedy this shortcoming, the Racine report proposes to create such a statute, in particular to facilitate access by authors to the benefit of social rights (health insurance, training, retirement, etc.).<\/span><\/div>\n
Furthermore, the Racine report defends the idea that artist-authors should not depend solely on the exploitation of their works by the cultural industries, but also be paid directly for their work. He proposes for this the establishment of an “order contract” which would oblige intermediaries, such as publishers or producers, to pay for the creative work in addition to the payment of copyright royalties.<\/span><\/div>\n
This would be a profound change in France, as since the time of Beaumarchais and the French Revolution, the law considers the author as an owner deriving his income from the exploitation of his work. This system certainly allows the author theoretically to benefit from remuneration, but we have arrived today at the paradox that the work is better protected than the author, and it is the former that constitutes the true centre of gravity of intellectual property.<\/span><\/div>\n
Samantha Bailly, an author particularly involved in the unions of artist-authors who mobilized around the Racine report, thus sums up that the change of perspective that this text proposes to operate: “the improvement of our social rights is linked to the recognition of artist-authors both as owners of works, but also as workers. We are many individuals, not just works – we have bodies, we eat, we hurt, we get sick, etc. It is this paradigm shift proposed by Bruno Racine’s report. “<\/span><\/div>\n
Another essential point concerns the mechanisms of author representation. The report highlights many dysfunctions in the way the interests of artist-authors are defended. Generally, collecting societies are heard a lot in public debates around creation, especially when copyright is concerned. But the report shows that these companies and the authors do not have quite the same interests and it requests that part of the sums collected by the former be used to finance the unions of authors. He also calls for these unions to be more widely involved in the definition of cultural policies, in particular through the various commissions set up by the Ministry of Culture. These proposals were very badly received by the collecting societies which vigorously opposed them, which tends to show that the Racine report is rather right to underline a divergence of interests!<\/span><\/div>\n
Copyright discussions would likely be different if creators could make their voices heard more directly. In 2018, a case took place in France which proved to be very instructive. A publishing rights firm tried to charge for public library readings, including story times for children. This sparked strong opposition from librarians, but also from some of the authors themselves who, through unions, have indicated that they want these library uses to remain free. Thanks to this direct intervention of the authors in the debate, the publishers’ project was abandoned.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
What are the main challenges of this report for libraries?<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At first glance, this report seems quite distant from the activity of libraries, but they should pay close attention to it, because its recommendations could profoundly change the landscape of creation.<\/span><\/div>\n
For more than 20 years, libraries have been mobilized to change copyright regulations, in particular by recognizing new exceptions adapted to the internet and digital uses. Whether global or international, these debates are very difficult and progress remains slow, as libraries face opposition, led mostly by collecting societies or government officials, who argue that these exceptions would threaten authors in their ability to live from creation.<\/span><\/div>\n
However, the Racine report very clearly demonstrates that the real problems of the authors lie elsewhere: they mainly reside in the imbalance of the balance of power with intermediaries such as publishers or producers, which leads to an inequitable distribution of value within cultural sectors. The precariousness of the authors also stems from the fact that their work is not well recognized, and therefore not well remunerated, because it is “invisible” in a way by the intellectual property on which the laws focus.<\/span><\/div>\n
At no time did the Racine report point to the issue of pirating works on the internet as the cause of the impoverishment of authors, nor did it indicate that exceptions to copyright would weaken their situation. On the other hand, he criticizes the functioning of collecting societies, for example pointing to the excessive salaries of their managers or the fact that they redistribute the money collected to too few authors.<\/span><\/div>\n
These findings are of direct interest to libraries, as they open the way for further discussions on systemic reform. It is significant that none of the points discussed in the Racine report were really discussed during the drafting of the new copyright directive adopted in 2019 by the European Parliament. The debates once again focused on strengthening intellectual property and criticizing new exceptions to copyright. But it is not this text that will rebalance the relations between the authors and the intermediaries, as requested by the Racine report …<\/span><\/div>\n
There is one point in the report which illustrates very well the false questions into which copyright disputes often fall. In France, the idea of \u200b\u200bestablishing a “paid-for public domain” regularly returns to public debate, the goal being to create a sort of tax on the commercial uses of works belonging to the public domain. The public domain is a mechanism that primarily benefits libraries and their users, in particular through the digitization of heritage collections. However, the Racine report unequivocally dismisses this idea of \u200b\u200bthe paying public domain, by showing that it would yield very little to the authors while restricting the uses and dissemination of culture. On the other hand, the report points to the fact that too small a share of aid for creation paid by the Ministry of Culture or collecting societies directly benefits artist-authors. This is just one example among many showing how false debates often hide the real questions …<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
What are the first steps for libraries to support these principles nationally and internationally?<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It is quite striking that libraries are absent from the Racine report, even though they also constitute a source of income for authors. Through the acquisition of media, subscriptions to digital resources, but also with the sums paid under the lending right, the libraries contribute to the remuneration of creators. In France, there is even a direct link between lending in the library and the social rights of authors, because part of the sums paid by libraries under the lending right is used to finance the retirement of writers.<\/span><\/div>\n
It is a pity – but also very significant – that the Racine report did not take this link into account, because it reveals a certain form of invisibility of libraries in the creation economy. Too often, libraries are accused of weakening the culture market by “cannibalizing sales”, when no serious economic study has ever demonstrated such a phenomenon. On the contrary, libraries could contribute more widely to the funding of creation if they were better integrated into the remuneration systems. For example, eBooks are a growing part of the work of libraries, but on legally fragile bases, since the legislation on the lending of the paper book does not apply and the system had to be reorganized around contractual negotiations with the publishers. As a result, the supply for libraries remains incomplete, but above all, the legal system of lending rights is put aside, which does not help to finance the social rights of authors …<\/span><\/div>\n
One could imagine an overhaul of the system, so that libraries can more easily make content available to their users, as proposed, for example, by the library treaty defended by IFLA with WIPO. In return, new remuneration would logically be paid to the beneficiaries. But if we follow the Racine report, we should be very careful that these sums go to the authors and that a part is used to finance their social rights.<\/span><\/div>\n
This report actually opens the way for further discussions between authors and libraries. To do this, it would be necessary to raise awareness of the role that libraries already play in supporting creation and to reflect on new ways in which library activities could directly help creators to exercise and make the most of their rights. Too often, the rights of authors and users have been pitted against each other as if they are incompatible. Now is the time to find synergies that will strengthen each other.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
French version<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Lionel Maurel, biblioth\u00e9caire et juriste en France, travaille au Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique <\/a>(CNRS) sur la science ouverte<\/a>. Depuis de nombreuses ann\u00e9es, il d\u00e9fend les int\u00e9r\u00eats des biblioth\u00e8ques sur son blog S.I.LEX <\/a>en proposant aux biblioth\u00e9caires des analyses juridiques concernant le pr\u00eat num\u00e9rique, les r\u00e9formes du droit d’auteur et le domaine public. Cet article pr\u00e9sente ses r\u00e9flexions issues du rapport Racine sur les impacts du syst\u00e8me actuel de droits d’auteur sur les droits des artistes et des cr\u00e9ateurs et le lien avec les biblioth\u00e8ques.
\n<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/div>\n
\n
Pourriez-vous nous exliquer ce qu’est le rapport Racine et le contexte de sa production?\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Il s\u2019agit d\u2019un rapport remis au Minist\u00e8re de la Culture en janvier 2020. Intitul\u00e9 \u00ab L\u2019auteur et l\u2019acte de cr\u00e9ation <\/a>\u00bb, il a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9 par Bruno Racine, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour des Comptes, qui a dirig\u00e9 la Biblioth\u00e8que nationale de France <\/a>de 2007 \u00e0 2016. Il comporte 23 recommandations visant \u00e0 am\u00e9liorer la situation des artistes-auteurs en adaptant le cadre r\u00e9glementaire aux nouvelles r\u00e9alit\u00e9s des m\u00e9tiers de la cr\u00e9ation.<\/span><\/div>\n
L\u2019origine de ce rapport est \u00e0 chercher du c\u00f4t\u00e9 d\u2019une forte mobilisation des auteurs en France, qui dure depuis plusieurs ann\u00e9es, en r\u00e9action \u00e0 une d\u00e9gradation continue de leurs conditions d\u2019existence. En 2017, une r\u00e9forme fiscale est intervenue, qui a encore fragilis\u00e9 une large partie des auteurs luttant d\u00e9j\u00e0 contre la pr\u00e9carit\u00e9. Pour faire face, les artistes-auteurs ont choisi d\u2019agir en s\u2019appuyant sur des syndicats, ce qui est assez nouveau en France. Traditionnellement, les int\u00e9r\u00eats des auteurs sont en effet plut\u00f4t repr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de gestion collective des droits.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
La commande du rapport Racine est intervenue pour essayer de d\u00e9nouer une situation qui devenait de plus en plus explosive, avec des appels des auteurs professionnels \u00e0 boycotter de grands salons pour attirer l\u2019attention sur leur situation. Elabor\u00e9 au terme d\u2019une large consultation, le rapport Racine \u00e9tait tr\u00e8s attendu et il dresse un tableau sombre de la situation des auteurs en France. Dans certains secteurs comme la bande dessin\u00e9e, pourtant \u00e9conomiquement en progression, pr\u00e8s d\u2019un tiers des auteurs vivent en dessous du seuil de pauvret\u00e9 et le taux grimpe \u00e0 50% pour les femmes. La France est souvent pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e comme \u00ab le pays du droit d\u2019auteur \u00bb, mais cette r\u00e9putation dissimule une situation de crise profonde pour les cr\u00e9ateurs.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Quelle analyse peut-on faire des recommendations de ce rapport?\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Le plus grand apport de ce rapport est de montrer que la subsistance des auteurs ne d\u00e9pend pas uniquement du seul droit d\u2019auteur, mais d\u2019un dispositif institutionnel beaucoup plus complexe, o\u00f9 les questions de fiscalit\u00e9 et de protection sociale jouent un r\u00f4le d\u00e9terminant. Il montre aussi que les artistes-auteurs ne disposent pas d\u2019un v\u00e9ritable statut professionnel, comme si leur activit\u00e9 ne constituait pas un m\u00e9tier \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re. Pour rem\u00e9dier \u00e0 cette lacune, Le rapport Racine propose de cr\u00e9er un tel statut, notamment pour faciliter l\u2019acc\u00e8s des auteurs au b\u00e9n\u00e9fice de droits sociaux (assurance-maladie, formation, retraite, etc.).\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Plus encore, le rapport Racine d\u00e9fend l\u2019id\u00e9e que les artistes-auteurs ne devraient pas d\u00e9pendre pour vivre uniquement de l\u2019exploitation de leurs \u0153uvres par les industries culturelles, mais aussi \u00eatre r\u00e9mun\u00e9r\u00e9s directement pour leur travail. Il propose pour cela la mise en place d\u2019un \u00ab contrat de commande \u00bb qui obligerait les interm\u00e9diaires, comme les \u00e9diteurs ou les producteurs, \u00e0 payer le travail de cr\u00e9ation en plus du versement de droits d\u2019auteur.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Cela constituerait un changement profond en France, car depuis l\u2019\u00e9poque de Beaumarchais et la R\u00e9volution fran\u00e7aise, la loi consid\u00e8re l\u2019auteur comme un propri\u00e9taire tirant ses revenus de l\u2019exploitation de son \u0153uvre. Ce syst\u00e8me permet certes th\u00e9oriquement \u00e0 l\u2019auteur de b\u00e9n\u00e9ficier d\u2019une r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration, mais on est arriv\u00e9 aujourd\u2019hui au paradoxe que l\u2019\u0153uvre est mieux prot\u00e9g\u00e9e que l\u2019auteur et c\u2019est elle qui constitue le v\u00e9ritable centre de gravit\u00e9 de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 intellectuelle\u2026<\/span><\/div>\n
Samantha Bailly, une autrice particuli\u00e8rement impliqu\u00e9e dans les syndicats d\u2019artistes-auteurs qui se sont mobilis\u00e9s autour du rapport Racine, r\u00e9sume ainsi que le changement de perspective que ce texte propose d\u2019op\u00e9rer : \u00ab <\/span>l\u2019am\u00e9lioration de nos droits sociaux est li\u00e9e \u00e0 la reconnaissance des artistes-auteurs \u00e0 la fois comme des propri\u00e9taires d\u2019\u0153uvres, mais aussi comme des travailleurs. Nous sommes bien des individus, et pas seulement des \u0153uvres \u2014 nous avons des corps, nous mangeons, nous nous blessons, tombons malades, etc. C\u2019est ce changement de paradigme que propose le rapport de Bruno Racine.<\/i><\/span> \u00bb\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Un autre point essentiel concerne les m\u00e9canismes de repr\u00e9sentation des auteurs. Le rapport souligne de nombreux dysfonctionnements dans la mani\u00e8re dont les int\u00e9r\u00eats des artistes-auteurs sont d\u00e9fendus. G\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, ce sont des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de gestion collective que l\u2019on entend beaucoup dans les d\u00e9bats publics autour de la cr\u00e9ation, notamment lorsque le droit d\u2019auteur est concern\u00e9. Mais le rapport d\u00e9montre que ces soci\u00e9t\u00e9s et les auteurs n\u2019ont pas tout \u00e0 fait les m\u00eames int\u00e9r\u00eats et il demande qu\u2019une partie des sommes collect\u00e9es par les premi\u00e8res servent \u00e0 financer les syndicats d\u2019auteurs. Il plaide \u00e9galement pour que ces syndicats soient plus largement associ\u00e9s \u00e0 la d\u00e9finition des politiques culturelles, notamment \u00e0 travers les diff\u00e9rentes commissions mises en place par le Minist\u00e8re de la Culture. Ces propositions ont \u00e9t\u00e9 tr\u00e8s mal re\u00e7ues par les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de gestion collective qui s\u2019y sont vigoureusement oppos\u00e9es, ce qui tend \u00e0 montrer que le rapport Racine a plut\u00f4t raison de souligner une divergence d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eats !\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Les discussions sur le droit d\u2019auteur seraient sans doute diff\u00e9rentes si les cr\u00e9ateurs pouvaient faire entendre leur voix plus directement. En 2018, une affaire a eu lieu en France s\u2019est r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9e tr\u00e8s instructive. Une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de droits dans le domaine de l\u2019\u00e9dition a essay\u00e9 de faire payer les lectures publiques en biblioth\u00e8que, y compris les Heures du Conte \u00e0 destination des enfants. Cela a d\u00e9clench\u00e9 une forte opposition des biblioth\u00e9caires, mais aussi d\u2019une partie des auteurs eux-m\u00eames qui, par le biais de syndicats, ont fait savoir qu\u2019ils souhaitaient que ces usages en biblioth\u00e8que restent gratuits. Gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 cette intervention directe des auteurs dans le d\u00e9bat, le projet des \u00e9diteurs a \u00e9t\u00e9 abandonn\u00e9.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Quelles sont les principaux enjeux de ce rapport pour les bibliotheques?\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A premi\u00e8re vue, ce rapport para\u00eet assez \u00e9loign\u00e9 de l\u2019activit\u00e9 des biblioth\u00e8ques, mais celles-ci devraient s\u2019y int\u00e9resser de pr\u00e8s, car ses recommandations pourraient modifier en profondeur le paysage de la cr\u00e9ation.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Depuis plus de 20 ans, les biblioth\u00e8ques sont mobilis\u00e9es pour faire \u00e9voluer la r\u00e8glementation sur le droit d\u2019auteur, notamment par la reconnaissance de nouvelles exceptions adapt\u00e9es \u00e0 Internet et aux usages num\u00e9riques. Que ce soit au niveau mondial ou international, ces d\u00e9bats sont tr\u00e8s difficiles et les progr\u00e8s restent lents, car les biblioth\u00e8ques se heurtent \u00e0 une opposition, men\u00e9e surtout par des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de gestion collective ou des repr\u00e9sentants de gouvernement, qui soutiennent que ces exceptions menaceraient les auteurs dans leur capacit\u00e9 \u00e0 vivre de la cr\u00e9ation.<\/span><\/div>\n
Or le rapport Racine d\u00e9montre de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s claire que les vrais probl\u00e8mes des auteurs sont ailleurs : ils r\u00e9sident surtout dans le d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre du rapport de force avec des interm\u00e9diaires comme les \u00e9diteurs ou les producteurs, qui conduit \u00e0 une r\u00e9partition in\u00e9quitable de la valeur au sein m\u00eame des fili\u00e8res culturelles. La pr\u00e9carit\u00e9 des auteurs d\u00e9coule aussi du fait que leur travail n\u2019est pas bien reconnu, et donc pas bien r\u00e9mun\u00e9r\u00e9, car il est \u00ab invisibilis\u00e9 \u00bb d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re par la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 intellectuelle sur laquelle les lois se focalisent.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
A aucun moment le rapport Racine ne pointe la question du piratage des \u0153uvres sur Internet comme la cause de la paup\u00e9risation des auteurs, pas plus qu\u2019il n\u2019indique que les exceptions au droit d\u2019auteur fragiliserait leur situation. En revanche, il adresse des critiques au fonctionnement des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de gestion collective, en pointant par exemple les salaires trop \u00e9lev\u00e9s de leurs dirigeants ou le fait qu\u2019elles redistribuent l\u2019argent collect\u00e9 \u00e0 un trop petit nombre d\u2019auteurs.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Ces conclusions int\u00e9ressent en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 directement les biblioth\u00e8ques, car elles ouvrent la voie \u00e0 de nouvelles discussions sur la r\u00e9forme du syst\u00e8me. Il est significatif qu\u2019aucun des points discut\u00e9s dans le rapport Racine n\u2019ait r\u00e9ellement \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9battu lors de l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la nouvelle directive sur le droit d\u2019auteur adopt\u00e9e en 2019 par le Parlement europ\u00e9en. Les d\u00e9bats se sont encore une fois focalis\u00e9s sur le renforcement de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 intellectuelle et sur la critique des nouvelles exceptions au droit d\u2019auteur. Mais ce n\u2019est pas ce texte qui permettra de r\u00e9\u00e9quilibrer les relations entre les auteurs et les interm\u00e9diaires, comme le demande le rapport Racine\u2026<\/span><\/div>\n
Un point figure dans le rapport qui illustre tr\u00e8s bien les fausses questions dans lesquelles les d\u00e9bats sur le droit d\u2019auteur tombent souvent. En France, revient r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement dans le d\u00e9bat public l\u2019id\u00e9e d\u2019instaurer un \u00ab domaine public payant \u00bb pour instituer une sorte de taxe sur les utilisations commerciales des \u0153uvres appartenant au domaine public. Le domaine public est un m\u00e9canisme qui b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie au premier chef aux biblioth\u00e8ques et \u00e0 leurs usagers, notamment \u00e0 travers la num\u00e9risation des collections patrimoniales. Or le rapport Racine \u00e9carte sans ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 cette id\u00e9e du domaine public payant, en montrant qu\u2019il rapporterait tr\u00e8s peu aux auteurs tout en restreignant les usages et la diffusion de la culture. En revanche, le rapport pointe le fait qu\u2019une part trop faible des aides \u00e0 la cr\u00e9ation vers\u00e9es par le Minist\u00e8re de la Culture ou les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de gestion collective b\u00e9n\u00e9ficient directement aux artistes-auteurs. Ce n\u2019est qu\u2019un exemple parmi d\u2019autres montrant comment de faux d\u00e9bats cachent souvent les vraies questions\u2026\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Quelles sont les premieres etapes pour les bibliotheques pour soutenir ces principes au niveau national et international?\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Il est assez frappant de constater que les biblioth\u00e8ques sont absentes du rapport Racine, alors pourtant qu\u2019elles constituent aussi une source de revenus pour les auteurs. A travers les acquisitions de supports, les abonnements \u00e0 des ressources num\u00e9riques, mais aussi avec les sommes vers\u00e9es au titre du droit de pr\u00eat, les biblioth\u00e8ques contribuent \u00e0 la r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration des cr\u00e9ateurs. En France, il existe m\u00eame un lien direct entre le pr\u00eat en biblioth\u00e8que et les droits sociaux des auteurs, car une partie des sommes vers\u00e9es par les biblioth\u00e8ques au titre du droit de pr\u00eat sert \u00e0 financer la retraite des auteurs de l\u2019\u00e9crit.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Il est dommage \u2013 mais aussi tr\u00e8s significatif \u2013 que le rapport Racine n\u2019ait pas pris en compte ce lien, car cela r\u00e9v\u00e8le une certaine forme d\u2019invisibilit\u00e9 des biblioth\u00e8ques dans l\u2019\u00e9conomie de la cr\u00e9ation. Trop souvent, les biblioth\u00e8ques sont accus\u00e9es de fragiliser le march\u00e9 de la Culture en \u00ab cannibalisant les ventes \u00bb, alors qu\u2019aucune \u00e9tude \u00e9conomique s\u00e9rieuse n\u2019a jamais d\u00e9montr\u00e9 un tel ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne. Bien au contraire, les biblioth\u00e8ques pourraient contribuer plus largement au financement de la cr\u00e9ation si elles \u00e9taient mieux int\u00e9gr\u00e9es dans les syst\u00e8mes de r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration. Par exemple, le livre num\u00e9rique se d\u00e9veloppe aujourd\u2019hui de plus en plus en biblioth\u00e8que, mais sur des bases juridiquement fragiles, puisque la l\u00e9gislation sur le pr\u00eat du livre papier ne s\u2019applique pas et il a fallu r\u00e9organiser le syst\u00e8me autour de n\u00e9gociations contractuelles avec les \u00e9diteurs. Du coup, l\u2019offre \u00e0 destination des biblioth\u00e8ques reste lacunaire, mais surtout, syst\u00e8me l\u00e9gal du droit de pr\u00eat est mis de c\u00f4t\u00e9, ce qui ne permet pas de contribuer \u00e0 financer les droits sociaux des auteurs\u2026<\/span><\/div>\n
On pourrait imaginer une refonte du syst\u00e8me, de mani\u00e8re \u00e0 ce que les biblioth\u00e8ques puissent mettre \u00e0 disposition plus facilement des contenus pour leurs utilisateurs, comme le propose par exemple le trait\u00e9 sur les biblioth\u00e8ques d\u00e9fendu par l\u2019IFLA aupr\u00e8s de l\u2019OMPI. En contrepartie, de nouvelles r\u00e9mun\u00e9rations seraient logiquement vers\u00e9es aux ayants droit. Mais si l\u2019on suit le rapport Racine, il faudrait \u00eatre tr\u00e8s attentif \u00e0 ce que ces sommes aillent bien aux auteurs et qu\u2019une partie soit utilis\u00e9e pour financer leurs droits sociaux.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Ce rapport ouvre en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 la voie \u00e0 de nouvelles discussions entre les auteurs et les biblioth\u00e8ques. Pour cela, il faudrait mieux faire conna\u00eetre le r\u00f4le que les biblioth\u00e8ques jouent d\u00e9j\u00e0 pour soutenir la cr\u00e9ation et r\u00e9fl\u00e9chir \u00e0 de nouvelles mani\u00e8res dont les activit\u00e9s des biblioth\u00e8ques pourraient directement soutenir les cr\u00e9ateurs dans l’exercice de leurs droits. On a trop souvent oppos\u00e9 les droits des auteurs et ceux des utilisateurs, comme s\u2019ils \u00e9taient incompatibles. Le temps est venu \u00e0 pr\u00e9sent de trouver des articulations qui permettront de les renforcer mutuellement.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lionel Maurel, librarian and lawyer in France, works at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) on open science. For many years, he has been defending the interests of libraries on his blog S.I.LEX by offering legal analysis to librarians concerning e-lending, copyright reforms and the public domain. This article presents his reflections from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1041,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[26589,18164,20968,11,26862,26647,26863],"class_list":["post-2156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-copyright4libraries","tag-access-to-information","tag-advocacy","tag-copyright","tag-creatorss-rights","tag-library-advocacy","tag-racine-report"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2156","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1041"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2156"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2156\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2281,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2156\/revisions\/2281"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ifla.org\/lpa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}