PEARLE seminar Brussels_LorrainAC(15062011)

838 views

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

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

PEARLE seminar Brussels_LorrainAC(15062011)

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… outdated in the digital context?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

×