|
|
Doc. 9110
1 June 2001
Draft European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage and draft Protocol on the Protection of Television Productions to the draft European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage
Report1
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mr Andrzej Urbanczyk, Poland, Socialist Group
Summary
The Assembly fully shares the view that cinematographic work and other moving image material, as defined by the draft Convention, are part of the European cultural heritage and a record of our past. States should ensure that they are safeguarded and protected for posterity and made available in the public interest.
The need to strike a balance between the safeguarding of old production and contemporary and future works should lead to provide some general criteria on material to be preserved to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory decisions and take into account the existence of a common European heritage.
It has also to be ensured that in practice the bodies responsible for legal deposit be independent, not only from economic but also from political interference.
I. Draft opinion
1. The Assembly welcomes and generally supports the draft Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage and the draft Protocol on the Protection of Television Productions to the European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage. It recalls in this respect its various recommendations on cinema and the audiovisual sector, in particular Recommendation 862 (1979) on cinema and the state, Recommendation 1067 (1987) on the cultural dimension of broadcasting in Europe and the Resolution 887 (1987) on European Cinema and Television Year.
2. The Assembly fully shares the view that cinematographic work and other moving image material, as defined by the draft Convention and as may be elaborated in subsequent protocols, are part of the European cultural heritage and a record of our past and that states should be asked to ensure that they are safeguarded and protected for posterity and made available for scientific, cultural and research purposes, in the public interest.
3. The timing of the Convention is welcomed as new technologies, especially digitalisation, now make it possible to collect new cinematographic and television works as well as to preserve more effectively older works on perishable supports.
4. The obligation of legal deposit applies exclusively to moving image material which will be produced after the Convention and the Protocol enter into force, whilst already existing works (and foreign productions) are only subject to voluntary deposit. It is therefore important that, in the future implementation of the Convention, states should be urged to safeguard masterpieces of the past.
5. There is some confusion in the draft Convention as to what material should be preserved: “all cinematographic works” produced after its entry into force, as stipulated in Article 3 (1), or what each contracting Party considers as material “forming part of its audiovisual heritage”. The explanatory report to the Convention is just as ambiguous but leans in favour of the “Parties’ wish to decide for themselves what does or does not belong to this heritage”. Such a subjective definition could result in arbitrary or discriminatory decisions.
6. The draft Protocol on Television Productions is clearer since it only states that the obligation for legal deposit concerns “television productions forming part of its audiovisual heritage”. Such an approach may be more easily defendable given the huge amount of television productions. The concern about arbitrary decisions, nevertheless, is still the same.
7. The Assembly regrets that the legal deposit only concerns what individual countries consider as part of their own national heritage. Standardisation of procedures throughout Europe cannot be a satisfactory explanation since it does not take into account the existence of a common European heritage.
8. It is important not only that the bodies responsible for legal deposit should be independent from natural or legal persons involved in profit-making activities, but that they should be also free of any direct political interference. Although censorship, especially of television productions, occurs less and less frequently in Europe, it is not yet entirely a thing of the past.
9. It is important that deposited material should be made easily available and accessible for cultural, scientific and research purposes.
10. In conclusion, the Assembly hopes that the member states will sign and ratify the Convention and its Protocol as soon as possible in order to speed up their entry into force. Every effort should be made to invite non-European states also to join, as the European public does not limit its viewing to European material.
II. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Urbanczyk
A. Introduction
1. On 20 December 2000, the Ministers’ Deputies agreed to consult the Parliamentary Assembly on the draft European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual heritage and on the draft Protocol on the Protection of Television Productions to the European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual heritage. These texts were transmitted to the Assembly on 25 January 2001. The Standing Committee referred them to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education and, for opinion, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on 14 March 2001 (Reference N° 2588).
2. Attempts have been made to preserve the audiovisual heritage for more than a century. Only two years after the first films of the Lumičre brothers, the Polish film-maker Boleslaw Matuszewski published in Paris the brochure "Cinematography as a witness to history", in which he suggested setting up special museums where every film document could be deposited for posterity.
3. But awareness that such measures are necessary is only recent and when many films and other moving image documents have been destroyed and lost forever. This has happened not only because of a lack of awareness but because of the difficulty of anticipating how the materials used for film production would alter with the passing of time.
4. A similar problem exists today with so called acid-paper. Libraries around the world are forced to take very complicated and costly measures in order to safeguard books made of this perishable material.
5. Contemporary scientists are equally unable to provide convincing guarantees that digital documents can be preserved for more than ten years.
6. Therefore, the challenge is very important for history and for culture. It is also one that the Committee of Culture, Science and Education has to take very seriously in its overall endeavour to contribute to the preservation of the cultural heritage. Audiovisual works are becoming an increasingly significant part of this heritage.
7. In the majority of the European countries there is a legal system of obligatory deposit for books. It is natural to that similar measures should be taken in the case of the audiovisual heritage.
8. The European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs meeting in 1996 decided on three main actions to be undertaken in the field of the audiovisual heritage:
to safeguard the European audiovisual heritage as far as possible;
to provide very strict protection rules for future works ;
to put new technologies at the service of conservation and of access to the audiovisual heritage by respecting the objectives of conservation of these works on their original medium, their physical integrity and their creative dimension.
B. The draft European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual heritage and the draft Protocol on the Protection of Television Productions
9. The Convention mainly satisfies the second point of this action programme and also partly replies to the objectives set in the first and the third points. The Convention aims at ensuring the protection of the European audiovisual heritage and its appreciation both as an art form and as a record of our past by means of its collection, its preservation and the availability of moving image material for cultural, scientific and research purposes in the public interest.
10. For that purpose, the Convention proposes two main instruments :
“Legal deposit” which is the obligation to deposit moving image material having being produced or coproduced on the territory of the States which are Parties to the Convention. For these purpose each State should designate one or more archive bodies.
“Voluntary deposit” allows other moving image material, including ancillary material, also to be deposited.
11. The key phrase in this context is "moving image material forming part of its audiovisual heritage". The criteria of what is or is not the part of their audiovisual heritage should be defined by the contracting Parties-States independently, according to their own understanding of cultural heritage. This is the main point at issue in the Convention.
12. The Protocol on the Protection of Television Productions is the first practical document connected to the protection of this specific production and deriving from the Convention.
C. Main concerns
13. The Parliamentary Assembly should support this Convention because it helps us to preserve new cinematographic and television works as well as to preserve more effectively older works on perishable supports.
14. Since the Ministers Deputies expect our opinion in order to resume the consideration of this draft text, we should share with them our doubts and indicate also certain controversial points of the Convention.
15. Firstly, we have to stress the need to strike a balance between the safeguarding of old audiovisual production and contemporary and future works. The Convention only applies to audiovisual works produced after its entry into force. However, this should not mean that States should not be encouraged to deposit already existing production.
16. Secondly, the Convention leaves it up to each Party to establish criteria in order to decide which material qualifies as “forming part of its audiovisual heritage". The Convention should have provided at least some general criteria in order to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory decisions and taken into account the existence of a common European heritage.
17. Thirdly, the Convention and the Protocol should have laid down not only the condition that the bodies responsible for legal deposit should be independent from natural and legal persons involved in profit making activities, but that they should also be protected from direct political influence.
Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Reference to committee: Doc.8976 and Reference N° 2588 of 14 March 2001
Draft opinion: unanimously adopted by the committee on 26 April 2001
Members of the committee: MM. Rakhansky (Chairman), de Puig, Risari, Billing (Vice-Chairmen), Akhvlediani, Arzilli, Asciak (Alternate : Debono Grech), Bartumeu Cassany, Berceanu, Berzinš, Birraux (Alternate: Bockel), Mrs Castro, MM. Cherribi, Cubreacov, Mrs Damanaki, MM. Dias, Dolazza, Duka-Zólyomi, Fayot, Mrs Fernández-Capel (Alternate : Mrs Agudo), MM. Galoyan, Goris, Hadjidemetriou, Haraldsson, Hegyi, Henry, Higgins, Irmer, Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa, Mr Ivanov (Alternate: Mrs Poptodorova), MM. Jakic, Kalkan, Mrs Katseli, MM. Kofod-Svendsen, Kramaric, Mrs Kutraité Giedraitiené (Alternate : Mrs Mikutiene), Mr Lachat, Mrs Laternser, MM. Lekberg, Lemoine, Lengagne, Libicki, Liiv, Mrs Lucyga, MM. Maass, Marmazov, Mateju, McNamara, Melnikov (Alternate: Gostev), Mignon, Minarolli, Nagy, Mrs Nemcova, MM. Nigmatulin, O’Hara (Alternate: Mrs Cryer), MM. Pavlov, Pinggera, Plattner (Alternate : Mrs Nabholz-Haidegger), Prisacaru, Rapson (Alternate : Hancock), Roseta, Mrs Saele, Mr Saglam, Mrs Schicker, MM. Schweitzer, Seyidov, Shaklein (Alternate: Ustiugov), Sudarenkov, Symonenko (Alternate : Khunov), Tanik, Tudor, Turini (Alternate : Martelli), Urbanczyk, Vakilov, Valk, Wilshire (Alternate : Jackson), Wittbrodt, Wodarg, Xhaferi.
N.B. The names of the committee members present at the meeting are printed in italics
Secretariat of the committee : Mr Grayson, Mr Ary, Mrs Theophilova-Permaul, Mr Torcătoriu