Producers Of Phonograms Research Articles

International legal protection of related rights of broadcasting organisations

The international protection of the rights of radio broadcasting organisations to the programmes they create and broadcast began with the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, done in Rome on 26 October 1961 (the Rome Convention). The Rome Convention establishesthe general principles of legal protection of the rights of radio broadcasting organisations and establishes property rights that allow them to influence the use of programmes by third parties. On 21 May 1974, the Convention on the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (the Brussels Satellite Convention) was adopted in Brussels. This actdoes not contain any provisions on the rights of broadcasting organisations and is an international treaty in the field of public international law rather than private international law. On 15 April 1994, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) was adopted. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that it is the first international act thatcombines provisions on the legal protection of various intellectual property rights: copyright and related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, inventions, etc. In terms of the related rights of radio broadcasting organisations, the TRIPS Agreement is based on the provisions of the Rome Convention and does not provide for any other related rights.Thus, today, the related rights of radio broadcasting organisations at the international level comply with the standards of 1961. This does not take into account modern broadcasting and information transmission technologies, and therefore does not sufficiently protect the interests of radio broadcasting organisations. Since the late 90s, a new international treaty on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations has been developed under the auspices of WIPO. The adoption of this treaty is an urgent need to strengthen the international system of protection of the rights of radio broadcasting organisations.

Limitation on property rights of performers, producers of phonograms in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine and the EU

Keywords: copyright; related rights; limitation of the rights of performers, producersof phonograms; performance; phonograms; compulsory licences
 The article isdevoted to the study of the norms concerning the limitation of property rights of performersand producers of phonograms. These provisions are applied by analogy to thenorms on the limitation of property rights of the authors. The provisions allow anyperson to lawfully use the performance of works, their sound recordings (phonograms)without the permission of the subjects of copyright and related rights and withoutpayment of remuneration, or in some cases — with payment of remuneration.The norms are applied in special cases, in the public interest, in particular reproductionof performances, phonograms for personal purposes, for studying and scientificresearch, for informational purposes, etc. Therefore, their research requires specialattention.The article analyses the limitations of property rights of performers and producersof phonograms, defined in the Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights». Attentionis focused on the special conditions for the application of norms on the limitationof property rights of performers, producers of phonograms, in comparison withthe norms on the limitation of property rights of authors.The legal analysis of the relevant norms, defined in the international conventionsin the sphere of related rights, has been carried out. It is stated that the relevant norms of the Law are borrowed from the Convention for the Protection of Producers ofPhonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms. The cases oflimitations, defined in this Convention, concerning exceptions related to the issuanceof compulsory licences. However, this was not considered when formulating thenorms of the Law.For comparison, the relevant norms of EU law in the sphere of copyright and relatedrights have been studied. The conditions of free reproduction of copies of phonogramsfor educational purposes, defined in the Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and RelatedRights», in particular on exceptions to the export of reproduced copies of phonograms,requirements for remuneration, in the analysed EU laws are absent.It is concluded that the provisions of the Law have to be improved. Suggestionsare provided. Appropriate changes will facilitate the effective application of thenorms on the limitation of property rights of performers and producers of phonograms,in practice.

O‘ZBEKISTONDA MUALLIFLIK HUQUQI HIMOYASINI TA’MINLASHDA MULKIY HUQUQLARNI JAMOAVIY ASOSDA BOSHQARUVCHI TASHKILOTLARNING TUTGAN O‘RNI

The article discusses the current state and processes of copyright protection in Uzbekistan, in particular, the role of organizations that manage property rights on a collective basis. It is known that according to the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Copyright and Related Rights”, authors, performers, producers of phonograms or other copyright holders of works of science, literature and art, in order to exercise their property rights, have the right to create organizations that manage their property rights on a collective basis. The article highlights the legal significance of the legal methods and means used by such organizations in the performance of their tasks and functions. Due to the fact that organizations that manage property rights on a collective basis are entitled to take any legal actions necessary to protect the rights they manage, the legal nature of these actions, the mechanisms for protecting the property and personal non-property rights of authors and right holders with highlights. The article also provides that an organization which manages property rights on a collective basis may agree with users on the amount of remuneration to be paid on behalf of the right holders and the basis of the powers arising from them, and other terms of contracts. Issues such as entering into agreements with users and negotiating with users the amount of remuneration for exercising the rights managed by the organization were also discussed. The conclusion based on the issue of improving the “institution” of collective copyright management in Uzbekistan is provided at the end of the article.

Right to remix: ideas and original forms of musical works

The modern stage of development of creativity is characterized by an increase in the manufacturability of this type of activity. The art of making popular music fits into this trend, highlighting its advantages and disadvantages most vividly. The peculiarity of popular music production is the repetition of standard expressive means, which have proven to be attractive. The copying of popular fragments and spectacular musical techniques became widespread, resulting in the formation of sound remix culture. Against this background, the number of disputes over the boundaries of legal borrowing of musical material has increased in the courts both in Russia and abroad. In the media sphere, examples of unlawful appropriation of fragments from popular songs that violate the rights of their composers, performers, and producers of phonograms are discussed. To resolve such disputes, specialized procedures have been developed, the results of which are criticized. This article discusses various approaches to the legal qualification of copying musical material. The phenomenon of the formation of musical standards, repetitive elements, techniques, and clichés, which are proposed to be classified as unguarded musical ideas at the doctrinal level, is investigated. The methods used to establish copyright infringement, to identify the facts of unlawful appropriation of musical material, and significant similarity of works are analyzed. Our attention is drawn to the test of the unique quality of a musical work and its justification from the point of view of the principles of copyright. To make decisions on music copying cases, we propose to use data on the quantitative ratio of protected and unprotected material in the compared works, as well as on the sources of borrowing that can be obtained using computer music recognition tools

Contractual Relations with Participation of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations

Contractual Relations with Participation of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations

Rights to Intellectual Works Generated with Artificial Intelligence: A Russian View in the Global Context

The broad use of artificial intelligence in creating intellectual works poses difficulties for legislators and courts in choosing the proper legal framework for such works and defining the place of artificial intelligence in the legal system as a whole. In this article, we shall study different models of regulating such issues and analyze the prospects and consequences of their use. We show that only a few of many different models for copyrighting AI-generated works are viable and that the most promising among them is the introduction of a special limited related right for the person who organizes the use of the AI application. This model resembles already existing civil law approaches to protecting the rights of phonogram producers, broadcasting and cablecasting organizations, and database creators. Thus, the inclusion of artificial intelligence into the IP domain does not require reconstructing the legal framework but only adapting existing approaches.

The Pelham Chronicles: sampling, copyright and fundamental rights

On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated. This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling. This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6).

Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012- A Shot in the Arm For the Performers

The Copyright Act was amended in 1994 and one of the significant changes made in the old Act was extending protection and conferring rights to the performers by means of special rights, known as 'performers’ rights', in respect of making sound recordings or visual recordings of their live performances, and of certain related acts. The Amendment Act of 1994 harmonized provisions of the Act with the Rome Convention by providing protection to the rights of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations. By the Amendment Act, new provisions were inserted under Sections 2(q), 2(qq), 38, 39 and 39A collectively comprising of the legislative framework pertaining to performers’ rights in India.

Balancing the Interest of Copyright Holder – A Case Analysis of Delhi University’s Photocopy Case

Indian copyright law is at parity with the international standards as contained in TRIPS. The (Indian) Copyright Act, 1957, pursuant to the amendments in 1999, 2002 and 2012, fully reflects the Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886 and the Universal Copyrights Convention, to which India is a party. India is also a party to the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Rights of Producers of Phonograms and is an active member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Work protected in India,Under the Copyright Act, 1957 the term includes an artistic work comprising of a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, a map, a chart or plan), an engraving, a photograph, a work of architecture or artistic craftsmanship, dramatic work, literary work (including computer programmes, tables, compilations and computer databases), musical work (including music as well as graphical notations), sound recording and cinematographic film.

CJEU permits sampling of phonograms under a de minimis rule and the quotation exception

Abstract CJEU, Pelham and Others v Hütter and Others, Case C-476/17, EU:C:2019:624, 29 July 2019 The reproduction of small samples does not infringe the right of phonogram producers under Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29 if the sample is modified and cannot be recognized. Longer and recognizable samples can only benefit from the quotation exception if they—inter alia—enter into a ‘dialogue’ with the original work.

AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that unlicensed sampling infringes phonogram producers’ reproduction right

AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that unlicensed sampling infringes phonogram producers’ reproduction right

THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN SIGNAL AND CONTENT AS BASIS OF BROADCAST COPYRIGHT: A KENYAN AND SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE

The concept of broadcast copyright is one of the most controversial and non-felicitous subjects, both at national and transnational levels. Most municipal copyright laws and relevant international instruments merely provide that broadcasting organizations shall enjoy protection over their broadcasts and programme-carrying signals. Some of those international instruments include The Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 (hereinafter “the Rome Convention”). Article 13 thereof grants specific exclusive rights against certain activities in relation to the broadcasts of broadcasting organizations. Additionally, Article 1 of the Rome Convention guarantees that its exercise and implementation shall leave intact and in no way affect the protection of copyright in literary and artistic works. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter “the TRIPs Agreement”) of 1994 follows the model of the Rome Convention, and under Article 14 (3) grants broadcasting organizations the same neighbouring rights as the latter does. In both instruments, the object of protection in a broadcast or broadcasts was never defined. The Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (hereinafter “the Satellite Convention”) of 1974 does not grant broadcasting organizations any specific right but obliges Contracting Parties to prevent unauthorized distribution on or from their territories of any programme-carrying signal by any distributor for whom the signal emitted to or passing through the satellite is not intended. The protection conferred upon the broadcasting organizations under the above international instruments are replicated in the copyright laws of Kenya and South Africa without clarifying upon the property and the scope of protection of a broadcast. The failure to specifically define the subject matter of protection in broadcast copyright as well as its outer boundaries forms the genesis of the current controversy. Amid this controversy, this article examines two emerging global approaches around which broadcast copyright revolves, namely the content or rights-based approach, and the signal-based approach. Drawing from the two approaches, the article examines the extent to which they apply to Kenya and South Africa.

МИНИМАЛЬНЫЕ СТАНДАРТЫ ОХРАНЫ СМЕЖНЫХ ПРАВ В ЕВРОПЕЙСКОМ СОЮЗЕ

the level of protection of intellectual property rights in the European Union often exceeds the minimum standards established in international treaties. The issues of minimum standards of the protection of related rights established in EU directives are viewed in this article. These acts recognize the following related rights: the rights of performers, the rights of producers of phonograms, the rights of broadcasting organizations, the rights of producers of audiovisual works, the right of publisher of unpublished works. The right to Critical and scientific publications as an optional related right, is also considered here. The circle of related rights in the European Union will be further expanded if the Directive on copyright in the digital single market is adopted The proposal for this Directive includes regulations on the right of press publications concerning digital use of their press publications (article 11) and right of sport event organizers (article 12a).

Digital Copyrights Protection in GCC Countries: Prohibitions Against Circumvention of Technological Measures in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE

In order to control the use and licensing of copyright protected works in the digital context the creator of such protected works need to implement technological measures (e.g., encryption) when the given creative works are made available in the digital world. The technological measures provide safeguards against not only unauthorized use of the works, but also against the removal or altering of information (“rights management information”) necessary for the management (e.g., licensing, collecting and distribution of royalties) of the protected copyrights. This article attempts to collate, highlight, and then briefly access alignment of, the sanctions available in the individual GCC countries (i.e. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) against circumventions of technological measures protecting rights of authors, performers, and phonogram producers in the digital context.

Международно-правовые аспекты авторского права Германии (АПГ)

The article deals with international law aspects of the GCL. To this aim firstly the international conventions on copyright law are analyzed, in particular: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the wording of the Paris Act of 1971, the Convention on the Establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 and Aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994. There is also an analysis of the EU copyright law in terms of its correlation with the law of the EU member-states and an assessment of its evolution. It is emphasized that the core fact of origin of authorship is determined on the basis of the national legislation of the Member-States. Special attention is paid to the scope of the “principle of exhausted rights”. The article also touches upon the aspect of private international law. Particular attention is paid to the legal regulation of the Internet, including Internet providers, and its impact on the formation of the GCL. The problem of combating Internet piracy is also raised, as copyright infringement often occurs in relation to works published online. In addition, the article revealed what changes were made to the GCL to comply with EU law (including secondary law acts and the practice of the EU Court).
 The result of the study is, among other things, the conclusion that special legal mechanisms should be developed to regulate new forms of selling works that have emerged as a result of technological progress and in the near future the Internet will undoubtedly form ways for the further development of the GCL. However, this process can negatively affect the leading role of the author as a creative person.

Коллективное управление как способ реализации авторских и смежных прав в Таможенном союзе

This article is devoted to the collective management of copyright and neighboring rights as one of the most important ways of their implementation in Customs Union, Common Economic Space, Eurasian Economic Union and also ensuring property rights of authors, performers, producers of phonograms and other holders of copyright and neighboring rights in cases, when their practical implementation individually is difficult. World Intellectual Property Organization and UNESCO has repeatedly emphasized the importance of collective management as the most suitable path that avoids the limitations of copyright and related rights with providing legal opportunities for mass use of intellectual property in the new high-tech areas. Questions of collective management of copyright and related rights take a significant place in the directives of the European Union adopted in the last decade. Copyright collecting agency must have the whole spectrum of rights for its operation which will allow it to conclude licensing agreements and ensure their legal clarity.

System repartycji w Polsce

The paper presents the results of the analysis of issues concerning the distribution in Poland. Distribution, in the context of the copyright law, is the compensation for the reproduction of works used with permit by private individuals for the personal purpose. Depending on the form of the exploitation of work or the subject of right (authors, performers, publishers or producers of phonograms and video recording), the fee should be paid. Fees for the use of protected works are collected from users based on the license agreements. Collective societies involved in the collect and division of the fees for the use of works within the permitted personal use. Article 23 of copyright law established the principle for unpaid permitted private use. There is no claim for payment of remuneration to the collective society or to users, if the works are copied within its own personal use. Exploitation of the works on the statutory license for private use is permitted, therefore, in connection with eg. common interests. Moreover, the relationships established through the internet are not excluded. Specificity is the fact that nowadays the reprographic fee of media is borne by entities that are themselves do not use of the works and do not encroach on the symptoms of copyright as an exclusive right. Holders of reprographic equipment, who are already established in the field of reproduction of works for personal use by third parties are obliged to pay, through the organization of collective management of copyright and related rights, duties amounting to 3% of the proceeds of this account on behalf of authors and publishers, unless the reproduction is carried out under an agreement with an eligible (eg. the author or publisher). Reprographic fees, so-called copyright levies or fees, which are counted towards to the blank media and copying machines are paid by all customers. Fees are paid by producers and importers of copying devices and blank media. In the field of reprographic fees, copyright is obsolete and should be complemented with modern audiovisual equipment, including tablets, smartphones etc.

Forensic Evidence of Copyright Infringement by Digital Audio Sampling Analysis - Identification – Marking

In recent years, the number of attempts to use digital audio and video evidence in litigation in civil and criminal proceedings has increased. Technical progress makes editing and changing music, film and picture recordings much easier, faster and better. The methods of digital sampling differ from the conventional pirated copy in that using a sample involves extensive changes and editing of the original work. Different digital sampling methods make the technical analysis and the legal classification more difficult. Targeted analysis methods can clearly identify a case of sampling and belong to the main field of forensic analysis. If persuasive evidence of an unauthorized use of sampling cannot be produced, the proof is useless in the legal process. Labelling technologies that are applied correctly make an important contribution to the effective detection of unauthorised sound sampling. There are hardly any holistic approaches that integrate the problem of sound sampling into the fields of analysis, identification, and labelling. In combination with specific technical protective mechanisms against sampling, an unauthorised use of samples protected by copyrights can be prevented or reduced. Using and sampling somebody else’s piece of music or video can be a copyright infringement. The copyright and the neighbouring rights of performing artists and the neighbouring rights of phonogram producers are affected by the consequences of illegal sampling. Part 1 of the article introduces the problems of digital audio sampling, Part 2 describes the typical manifestations of sampling, Part 3 illustrates various analytical procedures for the detection of audio sampling and Part 4 shows the identification by labelling strategies.

The 50th anniversary of the Rome Convention for the protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations: reflections on the background and importance of the Convention

The 50th anniversary of the Rome Convention for the protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations: reflections on the background and importance of the Convention

The status of phonogram producers under Indian copyright law

The status of phonogram producers under Indian copyright law