Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: EU

Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: copies made in the context of licensed services

Usually, a service provider acquires a licence from the rightholder that covers all copyright relevant acts involved in the provision of the service, including the reproduction of copyright protected content by the end user. Such licensing agreements also reflect the view and the expectations of the end user.

Comments closed

Guidance on IPRED – presentation of specified evidence in control of the opposing party

Article 7(1) of IPRED provides for the possibility, in appropriate cases, to issue measures to preserve evidence without the other party having been heard (i.e. ex parte), in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the rightholder or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.

Comments closed

SWD IA on EU copyright modernisation – impacts of baseline option for digital retransmission

The legal uncertainty as to whether all rights relevant for the retransmission have been cleared faced by the retransmission service providers other than cable is expected to persist under the baseline option. As a result, those service providers can be expected to continue limiting their retransmission offers. Moreover, in view of the legal uncertainty, some market players might hesitate to launch innovative retransmission services or delay the launch in order to deal with licensing.

Comments closed

Online news aggregation and neighbouring rights for news publishers – evidence

New draft paper takes an economic perspective on the neighbouring rights debate and tries to find an explanation for this market outcome. First of all, it examines the economic impact of news aggregation platforms on news publishers. The available empirical evidence shows that news aggregators have a positive impact on news publishers’ advertising revenue. That explains why publishers are eager to distribute their content through aggregators.

Comments closed

The case when communication to the public is without intention to make profit

SCF, both within and outside Italy, manages, collects and distributes the royalties of its associated phonogram producers. SCF conducted negotiations with the Association of Italian Dentists with a view to concluding a collective agreement quantifying the relevant equitable remuneration for any ‘communication to the public’ of phonograms, including such communication in private professional practices.

Comments closed

Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: the general “leviability” of products and the country of destination principle in cross-border transactions

Consumers enjoy increasing possibilities to make private copies (for instance of CDs) and to store them on multiple devices. The same applies as regards reprographic copies. The need to compensate for such acts of private copying will not vanish from one day to the next. Therefore, although the importance of levy systems will probably decline over time, they will not be simply abolished in the near future, as some stakeholders would prefer.

Comments closed

Collective Rights Management: Commission refers Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Romania and Spain to the Court of Justice

The European Commission decided to refer Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Romania and Spain to the Court of Justice of the EU for failure to notify complete transposition of EU rules on collective management of copyright and related rights, and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use into national law as foreseen by 10 April 2016 Collective Rights Management Directive, Directive 2014/26/EU.

Comments closed

SCF v Marco Del Corso – opinion of advocate general

In the present case, the parties are in dispute in particular as to whether the principles developed in SGAE ruling, which concerned copyright and hotel bedrooms, can be applied by analogy to the related rights of phonogram producers and performers, where a radio broadcast in which phonograms are used is audible in a dental practice. The referring court wished to know, first of all, whether a dentist who makes radio broadcasts audible in his practice is required to pay equitable remuneration for the indirect communication to the public of phonograms communicated in the radio broadcasts.

Comments closed