<aside> 💡 For more detailed information please refer to the the full guide: Article 6: Preservation of cultural heritage
</aside>
While all countries have some provision allowing cultural heritage institutions to take copies of work for preservation purposes, too many do not allow for digitisation, or the safeguarding of born-digital works. Moreover, inconsistency and a lack of explicit permissions mean that collaboration between institutions is hard. Article 6 responds to these concerns, although leaves some questions.
What can be done? Copying
Who can make those uses? Cultural Heritage Institutions
What content can be used? Works and other subject matter protected by EU laws on copyright and related rights held in the permanent collections of institutions
For which purposes? Preservation
How many copies can be made? The required number
For free or paid? For free
Can the institutions ask others to carry out preservation copying on their behalf? Yes (on a simple contractual basis, or through a preservation network)
In countries where there is no political willingness to take full advantage of the policy space that is available under the existing EU laws, but only to do what is requested by Article 6, one should advocate for the best possible implementation of Article 6. This is a version that respects the conditions required by the EU lawmakers and ensures that cultural heritage institutions can pursue their preservation mission using the most appropriate tools and partners or service providers, and for as many of the works they hold as possible:
If they wish, Member States can adopt or maintain in force preservation exceptions that are broader in scope than Article 6 and yet are compatible with EU law. The ideal scenario for preservation would be to improve on both the existing preservation exceptions in each country, and those in the Directive itself, by: