EU copyright law for blind and visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation

European Commission · Have your Say · Initiative 13615

Evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive (EU) 2017/1564 and Marrakesh Regulation (EU) 2017/1563 · Statement of October 28, 2026

Core statement: An evaluation report that ends with „no amendments warranted“ measures administration, not participation. The Marrakesh Directive and Regulation are the right instrument – but as long as the overwhelming majority of published books remains inaccessible to blind and visually impaired people, the objective has not been reached. Participation is not created through exceptions to copyright, but through structure: accessibility as the default state of digital publishing, access without repeated proof of disability, and availability that is measured publicly.

What the report finds

The Commission has evaluated the Marrakesh Directive (EU) 2017/1564 and the Marrakesh Regulation (EU) 2017/1563, through which the EU implements the 2013 WIPO Marrakesh Treaty. The evaluation, required by Article 10(1) of the Directive and Article 7 of the Regulation, also assessed the impact of possible compensation schemes on the availability of accessible format copies and their cross-border exchange. The result, published on 12 December 2025 as report COM(2025)749 with the accompanying staff working document SWD(2025)406: the instruments matched expectations, improved legal certainty and the availability of accessible format copies, including across borders – and no amendments are considered warranted at this stage. The call for evidence ran from 13 April to 11 May 2023 and received 34 contributions, among them the DAISY Consortium and national libraries for the blind.

Recognition: cross-border exchange without a central platform

GISAD acknowledges what the report records as a success and what is structurally remarkable: the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies works through authorised entities in the Member States – decentralised, without a central EU platform, without a single point of failure. This is precisely the principle the EU-D-S is built on: many authorised entities complementing each other, instead of one body deciding for all. The participatory character of the instrument is right: Marrakesh recognises access to knowledge as participation, not as welfare.

Criticism: the exception is measured, not the condition

The yardstick of an evaluation determines its outcome. The Commission measures legal certainty, administrative procedures and cross-border handling – but not the actual availability of accessible titles relative to the totality of publications. According to estimates by the European Blind Union, around 30 million people in Europe are blind or partially sighted, and 95% of all published books are never converted into accessible formats; a study across six European countries finds less than 7% of published works accessible. An evaluation that concludes „no amendments warranted“ against this background confuses smooth administration with a fulfilled purpose. What is not measured publicly is not improved – the availability measurement therefore belongs in the report, independent and visible for every Member State: measurement outside the manipulable area.

Structure instead of welfare: access without an ID requirement

Using the exception runs through authorised entities and proof of eligibility. That is better than no access – but it turns participation into an administrative relationship with an ID requirement: whoever wants to read must prove their disability again and again. The EU-D-S has a simpler rule for this: identity only where identity is needed. A one-time, Truststation-signed credential – followed by WAN-anonymous access without profiling, without repeated verification of disability, without stigmatisation. The eligibility is checked, the person is not registered.

Compensation schemes: those who end the book famine do not pay those who caused it

The evaluation also examines possible compensation schemes. GISAD is clear on this: compensation models that burden non-profit libraries and organisations turn responsibility upside down. The Treaty became necessary because publishers did not provide accessible formats at the same time and at the same price. Those who close this gap must not be charged extra – that would be a participation levy on precisely those who create participation. The financing question belongs where the EU-D-S locates it: in participation payments and structure, not in levies on non-profit work.

GISAD’s recommendations

1. Public availability measurement as a core indicator: annual, independently collected figures on accessible titles per Member State, relative to the totality of publications – measurement outside the manipulable area.
2. Accessibility as the default state („born accessible“): accessible formats as a requirement of digital publishing itself – structure instead of retrofitted exception; the exception remains what it should be: a last line of defence, not the rule.
3. No compensation schemes at the expense of authorised entities; resolve the cost question through participation mechanisms instead of levies on non-profit work.
4. Proof of eligibility one-time and signed (Truststation), then WAN-anonymous access without profiling – identity only where identity is needed.
5. Keep the decentralised exchange through authorised entities as the guiding model – no central EU platform that becomes a single point of failure; linguistic diversity including minority languages as the yardstick (getmySense thinks in 2,500 written languages – participation applies to every language community, and to the elderly, for whom large print and read-aloud functions are participation).