Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

THE EBU PROPOSAL ON ECL + APPLICABLE LAW

991 views

Published on

Presentation by Heijo Ruijsenaars, Head of Intellectual Property, European Broadcasting Union

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

THE EBU PROPOSAL ON ECL + APPLICABLE LAW

  1. 1. THE EBU PROPOSAL ON ECL + APPLICABLE LAWHEIJO RUIJSENAARSHEAD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYEUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION
  2. 2. The dilemma of broadcasters’ archivesl EBU Members: 28 million hours of European radio and TV contentl Problem is (orphan) rights, rather than orphan works: n PSB productions include many different works and performances; one “uncleared” segment blocks use of the whole production n Huge administrative costs: e.g. 72 million GBP to clear BBC archive n Diligent search for PSB’s archives would only exacerbate, not solvel Need for specific solution recognised in InfoSoc report
  3. 3. The EBU proposal Ø ECL system, i.e. a “special/generic” model (CL agreement is decisive), should be available in each EU Member State; Ø For optional use only, i.e. national level to decide for which category of works and which use(s) it should be applied; Ø To be used only where need for collective licensing exists; Ø In connection with the ‘‘country-of-(licence-)origin’’ principle (i.e. one applicable law, also for online use).
  4. 4. EU Copyright :General need for simplifying rights clearance New media and multiplatform use (and audience reactions thereto) → urgent need for flexibility in rights clearance; Orphan works issue symptomatic of the more fundamental problem → administrative costs cannot be invested in new creations; important for (all) users and right holders alike; Simplified regime for rights clearance allows for more legal (affordable and easy-to-use) online offers → best way to tackle piracy.
  5. 5. The Danish ECL experience l ECLs are applied to: • Educational use (Art. 13 and Art. 18) • Internal use in business enterprises, etc. (Art. 14) • Public libraries (Art. 16b) • Visually- and hearing-handicapped persons (Art. 17) • Reproduction of works of art (Art. 24a) • Broadcasting of published works (Art. 30) • Broadcasters’ archives (Art. 30a) • Simultaneous retransmission (Art. 35) • [Mandatory collective licence concerning public performance of phonograms (Art. 68)] Plus: A generic ECL provision (Art. 50) for anything else!
  6. 6. The Danish provision on broadcasters’ archives l Works as part of broadcasters’ own [+ commissioned] productions can be rebroadcast and made available, provided the requirements of Art. 50 regarding extended collective licences are fulfilled; l This includes the making of copies needed for the reproduction; l It covers works which are part of the broadcasters’ productions broadcast before 1 January 2007; l The author may prohibit the broadcaster from including his work; l (Applies mutatis mutandis to performances).
  7. 7. The (subsequent) collective agreements in Denmark 2007: Framework agreement concerning on-demand use and use of clips in new productions 2008: Special agreement concerning re-runs of archive productions on DR’s two specialised TV channels (Children and Culture/History) Both: All right holders are represented jointly by a collective rights management organisation (CopyDan Arkiv, comprising several organisations)
  8. 8. What makes ECL so attractive? The Nordic ECL model has existed It is a Applied only ‘‘future- in cases proof’’ where ECL It requires a generally consensus allows for between the
  9. 9. Cross-border effect: Some preliminary questions Since when (and where) is mere reception of an authorized communication a separately restricted act under copyright? Does any of the Nordic provisions on ECLs explicitly prohibit the representation of foreign right-holders?How could Art. 9(2) Sat-Cab Directive be implemented anywhere if the ’deemed to represent’’ would not include foreign right-holders? Is the main concern not so much the delocalization of the user, but rather the tariff-setting?
  10. 10. Cross-border effect: Combine ECL with country-of-(licence-)originAdapt the satellite + Reciprocity agreementsbroadcasting model (1993 among national and foreignEU Directive) collective rights = Same online use can be• = 1 applicable law management societies agreed on all territories.(usually that of the ECL (such as currently appliedagreement) for music)
  11. 11. Some figures to comparel EU broadcasting sector: ≥ 30 billion Euros to the EU copyright economy; EBU Members: ≥ 10 billion Euros per year in original audiovisual productions; Largest bulk of that money goes to European right-holders.l How much does iTunes contribute to EU right-holders? E.g. European performers claim to see almost no income from music online services. BBC issues 300.000 contracts to individual contributors per year, but re-clearance of rights to those contracts requires 250.000 work hours and 5 Million Euros p.a.; Any music online service provider can cover 80% of worlds repertoire (probably 95% of most popular music) via 5 contracts only (with 4 major labels and one pan- European collective licence). Why focus of EU copyright reform (again) on music services only???
  12. 12. Conclusions l National ECLs to be introduced now (Green Paper too late; PSI Directive wrong instrument); l As simple as possible, special/generic model (= not limited to orphan works only, and not limited to the making-available right only); l Details to be decided by national laws/stakeholders (and allow continuation of any existing ECLs); l In countries where ECL is introduced for broadcasters’ archives: Scope + conditions to be determined by national law.

×