Licensing Of Rights Research Articles

Valuation of copyrights to audiovisual works: transparency practices of the copyright management organizations in the European Union

Motivation: The functioning of the audiovisual sector strongly depends on the use of copyrights and related rights. Problems with their clearing could harm the functioning of companies and might even lead to strong financial problems. The distribution of copyright-protected audiovisual works requires the licensing of rights by different rightsholders. Some of them are represented by Copyright Management Organizations (CMOs), which allow users to clear rights for many works without individual negotiations. Fees paid to CMOs for copyright-protected content constitute a significant part of operating costs for companies like TV stations, cable operators, VoD (Video on Demand) platforms. In case of intellectual properties for audiovisual works, CMOs make the valuation. They have been facing legal challenges due to subjective valuations as a result of being monopolies in the local market of the represented country and lack of transparency.
 Aim: This work explores the transparency of 21 CMOs in 4 EU countries due to their expected to be an integrated market status as the result of political and economic amalgamation. In addition to the adoption of The European Union Directive on collective management of copyright and multi-territorial licensing of rights, as part of the EU’s Digital Single Market project, this exploratory research, with comparative analysis of CMOs using the linear ordering methods, explains the necessity of an epagogic approach to creating correct institutions besides directives and laws, such as central observation, an ombudsman for conflict management, or an official body to employ these features in one structure to actively govern the market.
 Results: The conducted analysis allowed us to reflect on the importance of transparency and taxonomic mapping of the audiovisual market landscape will be the guideline to flatten the copyright valuation divergence in the EU and eventually will pave the way for fewer disputes and more innovations.

Умови видачі примусових ліцензій на винаходи (корисні моделі)

У статті розглянуто підстави й порядок примусового ліцензування прав на винаходи й корисні моделі, схарактеризовано примусову ліцензію на винахід (корисну модель), досліджено поняття «невикористання та недостатнє використання винаходу (корисної моделі)» як підстави видачі примусової ліцензії, проаналізовано судовий порядок видачі примусової ліцензії та визначено її умови.
 Установлено, що умовами видачі примусової ліцензії на винахід (корисну модель) є невикористання або недостатнє використання винаходу (корисної моделі) без поважних причин в Україні протягом 3-х років, небажання власника патенту укласти ліцензійний договір із потенційним користувачем і прагнення та готовність особи, що бажає отримати ліцензію, використовувати винахід (корисну модель). Доведено, що правовою підставою користування майновими правами інтелектуальної власності на підставі примусової ліцензії є юридичний склад: рішення суду, що набрало законної сили, про видачу примусової ліцензії; видача невиключної ліцензії. Доведено, що рішення суду не підміняє видачі примусової ліцензії, яку видає сам власник патенту. Обґрунтовано, що саме рішенням суду визначається розмір і порядок виплати ліцензійних платежів, строк дії ліцензії та інші умови використання.
 Визначено, що примусова ліцензія на винахід (корисну модель) є невиключною, зокрема, видавши таку ліцензію, власник патенту не позбавляється права видавати інші ліцензії зацікавленим користувачам без обмежень.
 Відзначено, що з позицій власника патенту видача примусової ліцензії - це спеціальний обов'язок, що здійснюється за наявності законодавчо встановлених умов виключно в судовому порядку чи за рішенням Кабінету Міністрів України. Сама ж видача ліцензії є одностороннім правочином, передумовою вчинення якого є відповідне рішення суду.

Multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market: Directive 2014/26/EU

This paper will consider questions around the Directive 2014/26/EU concerning the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, considering the digital economy and the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe and the Europe 2020 Strategy aiming for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and the Article 167 and others of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The paper will consider the need to provide of coordination of national rules to avoid the inefficiencies in the exploitation of copyright and related rights across the internal market, looking for the benefit of rightholders and users, and the need of metadata systems for an effective aggregation of repertories. The paper will also consider the derogation for online music rights required by a broadcaster to communicate or make available to the public its radio and television programs.

Multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market: Directive 2014/26/EU

This paper will consider questions around the Directive 2014/26/EU concerning the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, considering the digital economy and the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe and the Europe 2020 Strategy aiming for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and the Article 167 and others of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The paper will consider the need to provide of coordination of national rules to avoid the inefficiencies in the exploitation of copyright and related rights across the internal market, looking for the benefit of rightholders and users, and the need of metadata systems for an effective aggregation of repertories. The paper will also consider the derogation for online music rights required by a broadcaster to communicate or make available to the public its radio and television programs.

Countering Harmful Tax Practices in Licensing of Rights: The New License Barrier Rule in Section 4j of the German Income Tax Act

On 2 June 2017, the German Bundesrat passed new legislation on the tax deduction of license fees as business expenses under section 4j of the German Income Tax Act (Einkommensteuergesetz). The authors present the new regulation in detail and conclude that it is not only unnecessary, but also problematic from the perspective of constitutional law and European law in particular.

The empire strikes back: CISAC beats Commission in General Court

The General Court's judgments in Case T-442/08 and related cases annulled Article 3 of the Commission's 2008 decision against CISAC and 20 collecting societies, on the basis of the Commission's failure to prove the required evidentiary legal standard for the existence of a concerted practice on national territorial limitations. These judgments should have an impact on the legislative process of the proposed Directive on collective rights management, namely in what concerns the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses.

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market COM (2012)372

The Max Planck Institute welcomes the initiative of the European Commission for a binding legal instrument on collective management of copyright and related rights in the EU. Numerous provisions are to be appreciated. Yet the Commission seems to fail to take account of the full legal framework and factual circumstances that have structured the current system of collective rights management. Disposing of natural monopolies in a two-sided market, collecting societies should not refuse to grant access to their services to rightholders and users. Hence, it is strongly recommended that the European legislature follows the experience of numerous Members States and proposes an obligation to contract with rightholders as well as with users. The critique on the Commission’s approach to cross-border licences for online rights on musical works as set forth in the Recommendation of 2005 has unfortunately not been duly considered and the Commission’s assessment of the practical effects of the Recommendation is mistaken. Differences of substantive copyright law among Member States still constitute an obstacle to the establishment of an internal market for works. This is why the Institute deems the Commission’s sectorial approach to the regulation of cross-border licensing to be problematic. Also such regulation would require further harmonisation of substantive copyright law. Moreover, the Proposal fails to take account of statutory remuneration rights and cases of mandatory collective management. Both pursue specific protection of original rightholders. In this regard the Proposal’s refusal to distinguish between different categories of rightholders raises concerns. Since collecting societies manage copyrights and related rights arising from national law, and considering the benefits of an authorisation system, which can be found in several Member States, the Institute advises the European legislature to clearly state that the intellectual property exception of Art. 17(11) of the Service Directive applies to collecting societies. The Proposal endangers the balance both between different categories of rightholders and between rightholders and users that the established system of collective management of copyright in Europe traditionally seeks to achieve. It thereby compromises the laudable goal to foster the establishment of an internal market for online uses of works across Europe.

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market COM (2012)372

The Max Planck Institute welcomes the initiative of the European Commission for a binding legal instrument on collective management of copyright and related rights in the EU. Numerous provisions are to be appreciated (paras 15 and 31). Yet the Commission seems to fail to take account of the full legal framework and factual circumstances that have structured the current system of collective rights management. Disposing of natural monopolies in a two-sided market (paras 5-9), collecting societies (about this terminology, see footnote 2) should not refuse to grant access to their services to rightholders and users. Hence, it is strongly recommended that the European legislature follows the experience of numerous Members States and proposes an obligation to contract with rightholders (para 10) as well as with users (para 11). The critique on the Commission’s approach to cross-border licences for online rights on musical works as set forth in the Recommendation of 2005 (footnote 6) has unfortunately not been duly considered and the Commission’s assessment of the practical effects of the Recommendation is mistaken (paras 9-10, 12, 17, 46 et seq.). Differences of substantive copyright law among Member States still constitute an obstacle to the establishment of an internal market for works. This is why the Institute deems the Commission's sectorial approach to the regulation of cross-border licensing to be problematic. Also such regulation would require further harmonisation of substantive copyright law (paras 13, 20 and 25). Moreover, the Proposal fails to take account of statutory remuneration rights and cases of mandatory collective management (see paras 14, 18 and 36). Both pursue specific protection of original rightholders. In this regard the Proposal’s refusal to distinguish between different categories of rightholders raises concerns (paras 15-18, 28, 55). Since collecting societies manage copyrights and related rights arising from national law, and considering the benefits of an authorisation system (paras 57 and 69 et seq.), which can be found in several Member States, the Institute advises the European legislature to clearly state that the intellectual property exception of article 17(11) of the Service Directive applies to collecting societies (paras 19-24). The Proposal endangers the balance both between different categories of rightholders and between rightholders and users that the established system of collective management of copyright in Europe traditionally seeks to achieve (see paras 32-45, 64). It thereby compromises the laudable goal to foster the establishment of an internal market for online uses of works across Europe (paras 12, 26, 46-65).

Selling within the English Language Markets

I am a British agent, representing mostly non-illustrated trade projects that travel well into other markets and languages. I work for the author, the creator of the material on which every part of our industry relies, and without whom none of us—agents, publishers, distributors, booksellers, printers—would have jobs. As such, I see the author at the heart of any discussion about the way to sell rights. Eight years ago at a Frankfurt Rights Directors’ meeting, speaking on the subject of Territorial rights I said, ‘‘Nothing ever stands still in publishing. And the changes that are now on the horizon for territorial licensing of rights will affect every agent and rights director who wants to represent their authors well, and every publisher who wants to protect the territory they have contracted and paid for.’’ Well, although nothing does ever seem to stand still in our book world, some issues don’t go away. And no discussion about selling rights within the English language can take place these days without mention of Britain’s membership of the European Union.

Toward an Electronic Copyright Management System

Work is going forward at CNRI, in conjunction with ARPA and the Library of Congress, on the design and implementation of an Electronic Copyright Management System (EMCS) to demonstrate the licensing of rights and permissions, payment of any royalties, and the electronic deposit, registration, and recordation of copyright works and related documents in a computer network environment. A variety of economic, social, and legal issues need to be addressed by both rightsholders and users in the course of this project. Cooperation among the copyright, computer, and communications industries concerned, taking into account the balance between protection for copyright works and the needs of the public for access to information, is essential if such a capability is to become a valuable maketplace tool