Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
PEARLE seminar Brussels_LorrainAC(15062011)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

PEARLE seminar Brussels_LorrainAC(15062011)

587

Published on


SEMINAR ON COPYRIGHTS IN THE LIVE PERFORMANCE SECTOR IN THE CONTEXT OF MOBILITY
FROM PHYSICAL MOBILITY TO VIRTUAL MOBILITY

15th of June 2011, 14h00 – 18h00
Kaaitheatre, Square Sainctelette 19, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Programme

13.30-14.00 Registration

14.00-14.15 Opening:
Catherine Baumann, President of Pearle*

14.15-16.00 Session 1: Touring of productions
Today, mobile live performance organisations have to deal with national fragmentation of copyright law and are confronted to increasing administrative burdens when trying to clear the rights for a production to be presented abroad. The seminar will discuss these problems encountered in the context of mobility and should suggest new proposals, ideas and solutions, made in Europe, the live performance sector could benefit from.
Moderation
Richard Poláček, Researcher and member of PRACTICS

Case Study
• Henrik Stålspets, Svensk Scenkonst, Sweden

Panel discussion
• Jean-Christophe Lardinois, copyright lawyer
• Jana Robert, researcher at the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts
• Jérôme van Win, SABAM
• Representative of the European Commission (tbc)
• Ursula Murschitz, Legal Advisor to the United Theatres of Vienna
• Panagiotis Gkofas, European Economic and Social Committee (tbc)
Questions & Answers


16.00-16.30
Coffee Break


16.30-18.00 Session 2: virtual mobility of live performance or the digital context
Live performance organisations make use of the digital world to offer new services to consumers, promote their production online or livestream an event to reach a wider audience. However, they are often confronted with new impediments that need to be overcome when going online. The new legislative proposals on copyright, currently on the table of European policy makers, have to be reviewed in this respect. Are there solutions foreseen adapted to the needs of live performance organisations?
Moderation
Richard Poláček, Researcher and member of PRACTICS

Case study
• Alex Batterbee, Royal Opera House Covent Garden, UK
• Claire Guillemain, Profedim France (tbc)
• David Zegers, Ancienne Belgique, Belgium

Panel discussion
• Anne-Catherine Lorrain, researcher, intellectual property expert
• Federico Poggi, DG Information society, European Commission
• Jean-Christophe Lardinois, copyright lawyer
• Petra Kammerevert, Member of European Parliament
• Representative of SACD-SCAM (tbc)
• Alex Batterbee, Royal Opera House Covent Garden

Questions & Answers

18.00-19.00 Cocktail

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
587
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. PEARLE Copyright Seminar
    June 15th, 2011
    Brussels
    Virtual mobility of live performance
    or
    the digital context
    Legaloverview
    Anne-CatherineLORRAIN
    Lawyer
    Researcher, Paris-SudUniversity
  • 2. The increasing part of performing arts
    in digital content
    Performing arts (‘spectacle vivant’) on the web:
    Video platforms (Youtube, Dailymotion), live streaming services
    Live performance related online services:
    Live event and ticketing online platforms (Live Nation, SongKick, BandsInTown, JamBase, Pollstar)
    Fans’ communities…
  • 3. ‘Performance’
    … for copyright lawyers…
    The traditionallegaldichotomy of economicrights…
    Performing right / reproduction right
    = Right of communication to the public; representation right; right to makeavailable.
    … outdated in the digital context?
    New legal challenges?
  • 4. Whoownswhatrightson what?
    Who?...
    • Who has to obtainrights use authorisation? (exclusive rights) / bywhom?:
    All ‘rightsusers’:
    Creators, artists (re-use of rights, derivedcreation, co-creation…)
    Live performance organisers
    Online service editors
    End-users
    • Authorisationforwhom?
    For whatkind of use/service?
    • Authorisationfromwhom?
    Rightsholders: creators (authors, performers, composers), publishers, producers
    ‘authorsrights’ + ‘related/neighboringrights’
    … represented by collectingsocieties (or ‘rights managers’) or not (individuallicensing)
  • 5. … on what?
    How (underwhat conditions)?
    Copyright ‘licensing’
    Excluding content under free license (Creative Commons…), uses covered by copyright limitations and non copyrighted content
    • Licensingon what?
    - Whatrights?:
    Right of reproduction / performance right
    - Whatrepertoire?
    • Licensing onwhatterritories?
    • 6. Licensing for whattariffs?
  • Copyright licensing
    The ‘territoriality’ issue
    International copyright licensing:
    an ‘old’ complexityorganised by collective management societies
    The example of music copyright licensing
    Traditionallicensing by collective management societies:
    Reciprocalagreements: multi-repertoireslicenses for eachterritory
    Rightsholder in country A Rightsholders in country B
    Repertoire A
    Collecting society in country ARepertoire B Collecting society in country B
    Repertoires A + B Repertoires B + A
    Users in country A Users in country B
    27 de facto monopolies:
  • 7. Copyright licensingNeed of adaptation to the digital environment
    Towards multi-repertoires AND multi-territorial licenses
    Initiatives from rights holders: Santiago Agreements (2001, expired), Barcelona Agreements (2002, expired), Simulcasting Agreements (still in effect)
    European Commission (DG MARKT)’s Recommendation on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services (2005):
    Intervention of EU regulator (soft law) to introducecompetitionamongst copyright managers:
    Users: Free choiceof right managers/collectingsocietiesirrespective of residence/nationality
    Grant of licenseswithout discriminationamongrightsholders and users
    ‘for a better service of online music licensing’ (within the EU single digital market); ‘for bettertariffs’…
  • 8. … Consequences
    Increased fragmentation of rights amongst European territories and amongst rights holders
    Demultiplication of Pan-European rights ‘alliances’: multi-territorial but limited ’multi-repertoires’ licensingplatforms (CELAS, DEAL, IMPEL, PAECOL, PEDL, WOI…)
    Bundledrights (reproduction + performance rights) licenses for limitedrepertoires(e.g.: EMI Publishing)
    New challenges faced by performance rights managers (Performance Rights Organisations: ‘PROs’)
    • Lack of visibility
    • 9. Lack of legalcertainty
    • 10. Altering cultural diversity
    What solution?
    - Practical: licensing ‘hubs’ (‘alliances of alliances’…)?
    - Legal: ‘governance/enablingtool’ for sustainableEuropean-wide copyright licensing(cf. EC Communication: “A Single Market for IPRs”, May 2011)? More than soft law?
    towards a unified European copyright law?
    - Mandatory collective management; extended collective licenses?
  • 11. CISAC Decision
    • European Commission Decision (2008):
    DG Competitioninfringementdecisionagainst music copyright collectingsocieties (CISAC members):
    Statement of objections: Traditional international licensing system between national collectingsocieties (reciprocalagreements: ‘RA’) does not complywith EU competitionrules:
    • Membership restrictions
    • 12. Territorial exclusivity
    • 13. Concerted practice in terms of territorial delineation
    Legalfoundations of national (copyright collectingsocieties) monopoliesatstake
    = Turnaround in EU case law
    • Decisionappealed by CISAC
    • 14. Suspension of EC Decisiondenied
    • 15. PendingAppealprocedure(EU First Instance Tribunal)
  • Conclusions
    Copyright management: impediments, complexity… and solutions
    Practice / Policy / Soft-Law / Law: a delicate interconnection
    The European ‘single digital market’… of live performances (?)
  • 16. Thankyou for your attention !Anne-Catherine Lorrain

×