Europeana	
  Founda,on	
  	
  	
  ·∙	
  	
  	
  EUscreenXL	
  IPR	
  Workshop	
  
The	
  Hague,	
  13	
  May	
  2014	
  
B...
Contents
•  The	
  peculiari,es	
  of	
  audiovisual	
  works	
  
	
  
•  Rights	
  clearance	
  
•  What	
  if	
  you	
  ...
The  peculiari?es  of  audiovisual  works
•  Different	
  rightholders	
  
•  Case	
  C-­‐277/10	
  Luksan	
  
	
  
•  Lega...
Rights  
clearance,  or:    
there  are  
things  that  
are  easier
What  if  you  
can’t  locate  
who  owns  the  
rights?
The  (shortcomings  of  the)  Orphan  Works  Direc?ve
•  Ini,al	
  idea	
  vs	
  final	
  result	
  
•  Rec	
  3:	
  “Crea+...
The  case  of  
the  UK
OW  Direc?ve  and  ERRA  licensing  scheme
OW	
  Direc,ve	
   ERRA	
  scheme	
  
Beneficiaries	
  
•  Publicly	
  accessibl...
Is  the  ERRA  scheme  just  “complementary”?
•  Is	
  the	
  legal	
  mechanism	
  actually	
  a	
  licence?	
  “The	
  S...
Is  mutual  recogni?on  enough?
•  OW	
  Direc,ve	
  basically	
  just	
  allows	
  digi,zing	
  works	
  and	
  placing	
...
More  rights  in  a  single  act  of  exploita?on
•  Is	
  it	
  a	
  problem?	
  
•  Google:	
  yes	
  
•  UK	
  Governme...
When  rights  clearance  
not  required,    
yet  s?ll  a  problem:  
excep?ons  and  
limita?ons
Different  scope,  but  what  room  is  really  leU  for  MSs?
•  Ar,cle	
  5	
  as	
  a	
  flexible	
  shopping	
  list?	
 ...
The  elephant  
in  the  room:  
territoriality
Fragmenta?on  and  unclear  laws  
lead  to  this:
Leaked  IA
How  (also)  to  reduce  territoriality
•  4	
  policy	
  op,ons	
  (none	
  preferred	
  …)	
  
a)  Leave	
  it	
  to	
  ...
Thank  you  for  
your  aYen?on!
eleonora@e-­‐lawnora.com	
  
@eLAWnora	
  
	
  
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Bringing Audiovisual Works Online: (No) Sooner Said than Done? (Eleonora Rosati, eLAWnora)

1,797 views

Published on

Presentation given at the EUscreenXL Strategic Workshop on IPR Regulations for Audiovisual Heritage, The Hague, 13 May 2014

Published in: Law
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,797
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bringing Audiovisual Works Online: (No) Sooner Said than Done? (Eleonora Rosati, eLAWnora)

  1. 1. Europeana  Founda,on      ·∙      EUscreenXL  IPR  Workshop   The  Hague,  13  May  2014   Bringing  Audiovisual  Works  Online:     (No)  Sooner  Said  than  Done? Eleonora  Rosa? @eLAWnora   eleonora@e-­‐lawnora.com  
  2. 2. Contents •  The  peculiari,es  of  audiovisual  works     •  Rights  clearance   •  What  if  you  can’t  locate  who  owns  the  rights?   •  More  rights  involved  in  single  act  of  exploita,on  (Public  Consulta,on)     •  When  rights  clearance  is  not  required:  excep,ons  and  limita,ons   •  Cross-­‐border  excep,ons  (Leaked  IA)?     •  Any  elephant  in  the  room?  
  3. 3. The  peculiari?es  of  audiovisual  works •  Different  rightholders   •  Case  C-­‐277/10  Luksan     •  Legal  treatment  of  underlying  works  and  soundtracks     •  Temporal  law  difficul,es   •  The  (messy)  case  of  the  UK  
  4. 4. Rights   clearance,  or:     there  are   things  that   are  easier
  5. 5. What  if  you   can’t  locate   who  owns  the   rights?
  6. 6. The  (shortcomings  of  the)  Orphan  Works  Direc?ve •  Ini,al  idea  vs  final  result   •  Rec  3:  “Crea+ng  a  legal  framework  to  facilitate  the  digi+sa+on  and   dissemina+on  of  works”   •  Rec  1:  “Crea+ng  large  online  libraries  facilitates  electronic  search  and   discovery  tools”   •  Without  specific  TDM  excep,on?  Right  to  read  is  right  to  mine?   •  Leaked  IA  deals  with  TDM  (some,mes  but  not  always  implies  making  a  copy)   •  Exis,ng  law   •  (InfoSoc)  excep,on  for  non-­‐commercial  scien,fic  research  (UK)   •  Excep,on  for  temporary  copies   •  Ar,cle  6(2)(b)  and  9(b)  Database  Direc,ve     •  The  way  seems  to  be  licensing?  (Licences  for  Europe)   •  Cf  Google  Books  ruling:  neither  excep,on  nor  licence  
  7. 7. The  case  of   the  UK
  8. 8. OW  Direc?ve  and  ERRA  licensing  scheme OW  Direc,ve   ERRA  scheme   Beneficiaries   •  Publicly  accessible  cultural  ins,tu,ons   •  Public-­‐service  broadcas,ng  organiza,ons   Any   Categories  of  works  (no   maUer  whether  published   or  unpublished)   •  Literary,  cinematographic  and  audiovisual  works  and  phonogram   in  collec,ons  of  publicly  accessible  cultural  ins,tu,ons.   •  No  photographs  and  stand-­‐alone  images   •  First  published  or  broadcast  in  the  EU   Any,  including  non-­‐ UK  and  non-­‐EU   PermiUed  uses   •  Only  to  achieve  public  interest  mission   •  Generate  revenues  only  to  recoup  digi,za,on  &  making   available  costs   Any   Legal  mechanism   Excep,on  to  the  rights  of  reproduc,on  and  making  available   Licence   Timeframe   Implementa,on  by  29  October  2014   Regula,ons  on  track   for  adop,on  in   October  2014  
  9. 9. Is  the  ERRA  scheme  just  “complementary”? •  Is  the  legal  mechanism  actually  a  licence?  “The  Secretary  of  State  may   by  regula+ons  provide  for  the  grant  of  licences  …”   •  OW  Direc,ve   •  InfoSoc  Direc,ve     •  OW  Direc,ve   •  Requires  MSs  to  adopt  common  approach  to  determining  permieed  uses  of   OWs   •  MSs  may  undertake  independent  ini,a,ves  to  address  larger  mass   digi,za,on  issues  (eg  out-­‐of-­‐commerce  works)   •  Not  the  case  of  UK  scheme  
  10. 10. Is  mutual  recogni?on  enough? •  OW  Direc,ve  basically  just  allows  digi,zing  works  and  placing  them   online     •  Has  effec,veness  (to  say  the  least)  of  EU  ac,on  in  the  area  of  OWs   been  impaired?  What  if  other  MSs  did  like  the  UK?   •  EU  pre-­‐emp,on     •  OW  Regula,ons  on  track  for  adop,on  in  October  2014     •  UK  is  thinking  of  concluding  agreements  with  non-­‐EU  English-­‐speaking   countries  to  create  OW  databases  and  ensure  mutual  recogni+on  of   OW  status  
  11. 11. More  rights  in  a  single  act  of  exploita?on •  Is  it  a  problem?   •  Google:  yes   •  UK  Government:  no   •  Time  and  economic  (transac,on  costs)  problem   •  What  if  you  don’t  clear  all  rights?   •  The  scope  of  some  (eg  making  available)  is  uncertain   •  Un,l  Svensson  unclear  whether  MSs  could  intend  scope  as   they  pleased   •  Is  it  good  for  rightholders?   •  Which  rights  have  been  infringed?   •  Where  to  sue?  Case  C-­‐170/12  Pinckney  and  Case  C-­‐387/12   Hi  Hotel  
  12. 12. When  rights  clearance   not  required,     yet  s?ll  a  problem:   excep?ons  and   limita?ons
  13. 13. Different  scope,  but  what  room  is  really  leU  for  MSs? •  Ar,cle  5  as  a  flexible  shopping  list?   •  Case  C-­‐510/10  TV2  Danmark   •  Case  C-­‐435/12  ACI  Adam     •  Over  the  past  year  alone  CJEU  quashed   several  na,onal  laws   •  Did  MSs  understand  what  InfoSoc  Direc,ve   required   •  Is  CJEU  pursuing  harmonisa,on  agenda?  
  14. 14. The  elephant   in  the  room:   territoriality
  15. 15. Fragmenta?on  and  unclear  laws   lead  to  this:
  16. 16. Leaked  IA
  17. 17. How  (also)  to  reduce  territoriality •  4  policy  op,ons  (none  preferred  …)   a)  Leave  it  to  market  and  courts     b)  Som  law  and  support  for  market  ini,a,ves  (Licences  for  Europe)   c)  Legisla,ve  interven,on  (5-­‐10  years)   •  Direc,ve  that  would  affect  InfoSoc,  Database  and  Rental  and  Lending  Rights  Direc,ves   •  How  to  reduce  territoriality   i.  New  legal  act  (internal  market  basis)  that  would  clarify  which  contractual  territorial  restric,ons  would   be  null  and  void  because  of  market  par,,oning.  Absolute  territorial  restric,ons  may  be  OK  insofar  as   only  way  to  allow  appropriate  remunera,on   ii.  Define  where  relevant  copyright  act  takes  place  for  the  sake  of  licensing,  according  to  country  of  origin   (establishment)  or  inten,on  to  target  approaches   d)  European  ©  code  that  would  replace  na,onal  ,tles  by  means  of  regula,on  ex  Art   118  TFEU  (10-­‐12  years)  
  18. 18. Thank  you  for   your  aYen?on! eleonora@e-­‐lawnora.com   @eLAWnora    

×