Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: collective management

Russia and the special 301 report 2019

The Special 301 Report (Report) is the result of an annual review of the state of IP protection and enforcement in U.S. trading partners around the world, which the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974. This Report provides an opportunity to call out foreign countries and expose the laws, policies, and practices that fail to provide adequate and effective IP protection and enforcement for U.S. inventors, creators, brands, manufacturers, and service providers.

Comments closed

USA copyright office should help Russian cinemas to avoid payment of royalties for synch right

Russian collective management society this year has sued different cinemas for non-payment of royalties for synchronization right. According to current Russian law the Russian Authors Society has received state accreditation for collecting of royalties for synch right. State accreditation in collective management of rights means the holder of such accreditation can collect royalties in the name of right holders, who even did not provide authority to do it.

Comments closed

EU exit UK IP draft regulations

A substantial part of the law on copyright in the UK is derived from EU law. There are 11 EU Directives all of which have been implemented by the UK. The purpose of the Directives is to harmonise the copyright frameworks in Member States, by reducing national discrepancies and maintaining a level of protection which encourages creativity and enables consumers from across the EU to access services.

Comments closed

IIPA 2018 special 301 report on Russia

The copyright industries have three intellectual property rights (IPR) priorities in Russia, which if properly addressed, could significantly improve the Russian marketplace for copyrighted works and recordings.

Comments closed

IIPA on Russia’s copyright law implementation and enforcement obligations

The copyright and related rights obligations of the WTO TRIPS Agreement consist of the substantive copyright law and related rights provisions set out in Articles 9 through 14, as well as the enforcement provisions in Articles 41 through 61.

Comments closed

RMLC and TMLC on collective rights management rules review

The producers and syndicators of programming obtain and license to the stations with which they contract all of the copyright and other rights necessary to broadcast the programming (including those for creative inputs such as a script, choreography, acting and directing), with the sole exception of the non-dramatic public performance rights to the copyrighted music therein.

Comments closed

Russian authors’ society filed suit against music festival Nashestvie for missing royalties

Russian authors’ society, the Russian collective management organisation, having state accreditation for collection and distribution of royalties for public performance right in offline environment, has filed a suit against organizer of music festival Nashestvie 2018 for unpaid royalties.

Comments closed

Sony/ATV music publishing on collective rights management rules review

Sony/ATV respectfully submits that the Consent Decrees should clarify, whether by amendment or otherwise, that each copyright owner (i.e., a music publisher) may, in its discretion, designate particular types of users or uses that the owner will authorize ASCAP or BMI (as the case may be) to include in their respective collective licenses, with the copyright owners exclusively reserving the right for themselves to license such rights to all other users or uses. ASCAP and BMI also should be required, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to accept these limited grants of public performance rights from copyright owners.

Comments closed

SWD IA on EU copyright modernisation – impacts of second option for out-of-commerce works in the collections of cultural heritage institutions

EU legislative intervention (i) requiring MS to put in place legal mechanisms to facilitate collective licensing agreements for all types of OoC works and to foster national stakeholder frameworks, and (ii) giving cross-border effect to such legal mechanisms.

Under Option 2, the presence of legal frameworks everywhere in the EU that allow for licences issued by CMOs to also cover the rights of outsiders would give CHIs the possibility to see their related transaction costs diminish considerably everywhere in the EU for the digitisation and dissemination of works. This would apply to all types of works. Under this option, it would be possible for the CHI to reduce that cost to the one of negotiating a single licence with a CMO. Licences concluded on the basis of such legal frameworks could have cross-border effect for all works too.

Comments closed

SWD IA on EU copyright modernisation – impacts of first option for out-of-commerce works in the collections of cultural heritage institutions

EU legislative intervention (i) requiring MS to put in place legal mechanisms to facilitate collective licensing agreements for OoC books and learned journals and to foster national stakeholder frameworks for these and other works, and (ii) giving cross-border effect to such legal mechanisms.

Comments closed