Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are

CreativeCommonsandRelatedRightsinSoundRecordings: AretheTwoSystemsCompatible? ChristinaAngelopoulos 1 December2009 1 LL.M., Researcher, Institute for Information Law (IViR), Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam. The author is very grateful to Lucie Guibault and Stef van Gompel for many helpful discussions and comments. ThisstudyislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttributionNonͲCommercialLicencev.3.0(The Netherlands) ii TABLEOFCONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1 PartI:DefiningtheSubjectMatterofRelatedRightsinSoundRecordings ........................................... 4 PartII:CollectiveManagementoftheRighttoEquitableRemuneration ............................................ 25 PartIII:AttachingCreativeCommonsLicensestoSoundRecordings................................................... 34 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 43 iii Introduction Moderntechnologieshavemadethedisseminationofcreativeworksovertheinternetchild’splay, whiletechnologicaladvancementshavechangedthefaceofeventraditionalmethodsofcirculation. Amultitudeofinnovativemedia,formatsandinfrastructureprovideuserswithnewwaysof accessingculturalproducts,somethingwhichisespeciallyevidentinthefieldofmusicalworks: today,musicsurroundsusandaccompaniesuswhetherintobarsandrestaurantsasweunwindwith friends,onthecarradioasweheadofftoworkoremanatingfromourcomputer’sloudspeakers, eitherunexpectedlywhenweclickintoawebsiteoraccordingtoourexpressintentionwhenwe tuneintointernetradioservices.Weevenhavethetechnicalpossibilityofdownloadingand streamingspecifictracksatatimeandplaceofourlikingthroughrecipientͲinitiatedmediaor creatingourownmusicalworksandsharingthemwithothersonline.Yeteventhesemodern technologiesarenotoutsidethereachofcopyrightlaw;theconstraintscopyrightimposesapplyto eventotheworksofauthorsthatwishtotakeadvantageofmoderntechnologiessoastoachievea broadandfreedisseminationoftheirwork. Inresponsetotheconsequentdemandformorefreedominthesharingofcreativecontent,open contentlicensesbegantoemergeatthebeginningofthetwentyͲfirstcentury.ThetermreferstosoͲ called‘somerightsreserved’licenses,whichenabletheownersofrightsincreativecontenttogrant certainfreedomsovertheirworks,allowingotherstoaccess,distributeorevenmodifythem.Today themostwellͲknownsetofopenaccesslicensesistheonedevelopedbyCreativeCommons(CC). CreativeCommonsisanonͲprofitorganisation,foundedin2001intheUnitedStatesanddedicated totheexpansionofthenumberofcopyrightͲprotectedcreativeworksavailableforotherstolegally builduponandshare.TheCreativeCommonslicensingsuiteenablesauthorstograntrightsover theirworkonanonͲdiscriminatoryandnonͲexclusive,royaltyͲfree,perpetualandirrevocablebasis forworldwideuse.DependingontheparticularlicensingtermsdecideduponbytherightͲholder, theapplicationofalicensetothematerialthey’vecreatedmaysimplyenableotherstoaccessand enjoyit,useitinacommercialenterpriseorrelyonittobuildanewandoriginalcreationoftheir own.Inordertofacilitateinternationalcoverage,CClicenseshavesystematicallybeen‘ported’into nationaljurisdictionsaroundtheworldunderthesupervisionofCreativeCommonsInternational (CCi).Theportingprocessinvolvesthetranslationofthecomponentsthatformthelicenses 2 and theiradaptationtonationallegislativeparticularities. However,foravarietyofdifferentreasons,theattachmentofCreativeCommonslicensestocreative worksmaynotalwaysgosmoothly.Amongthemanylegalquestionsraisedbytheemergenceofthe CreativeCommonslicensingsuite,isthequestionofitscompatibilitywiththecollectivemanagement ofauthorsrights;accordingtotheregulartermsofmostcollectingsocieties’exploitationcontracts, memberswillbeobligedtoassignallrightsoverthetotalityoftheircreativeoutput,bothexisting andfuture,tothesociety,whichisthenexclusivelyresponsiblefortheirexerciseandmaintenanceto theexclusionofallothers,includingtheauthorsthemselves.Authorsthereforeareobligedtochoose betweeneitherhandlingtheirrightsindividually,includingbymeansofCreativeCommonsorother opencontentlicenses,andforegoingcollectiveadministrationcompletelyorrelinquishingall authoritytocollectivemanagementorganisations:cherryͲpickingbetweendifferentexploitation methodsfordifferenttypesofuseiscurrentlynotpossible. 3 2 Creative Commons licenses involve a three-tiered licensing model comprised of the following elements: the Commons Deed (i.e. the human-readable code), the Legal Code (i.e. the lawyer-readable code) and the metadata (i.e. the machine readable code). See Creative Commons, “Frequently Asked Questions”, available at: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ. 3 L. Guibault, “Hallelujah: Buma’s aansluitvoorwaarden krijgen zegen van Nma!” (2008) 4 AMI 85. 1 Inordertobeginaddressingthisissue,in2007intheNetherlandsaninnovativeflexiblecollective managementpilotprojectwasinitiatedinthefieldofmusicalworksbetweenBuma/Stemra,the Dutchcollectingsocietyformusicauthorsandpublishers,andCreativeCommonsNetherlands,the DutchbranchoftheCreativeCommonsorganisationfoundedin2004.Theprojectinitiallyranfrom August2007foroneyearandhassubsequentlybeenextendedtwice,eachtimeforanadditional oneyearperiod.Theprojectisintendedtoallowcomposersandlyriciststodifferentiatebetween thecommercialandnonͲcommercialexploitationoftheirworkthroughtheemploymentofadual methodofexploitation:ontheonehand,Buma/StemramemberscanattachaCClicensewithanonͲ commercialclause 4 totheirmusicalcompositionsorlyricsenablingotherstofreelyusetheirworkin anappropriatemanner,whileontheotherhandtheycanalsoretainmembershipofBuma/Stemra andcollectroyaltiesfromthesocietyforinstancesofcommercialuseoftheirwork.Inaddition,the pilotprojectopenedthedoorsofBuma/StemratorightͲholderswhouptillthenhadavoided membershipduetotheirpreferenceforlicensingtheirworkunderCreativeCommons,providing thattheyhadpreviouslyrestrictedthemselvestotheuseonlyofCClicenseswithanonͲcommercial clause. Yet,thisinnovativeapproachisinhibitedbylegaluncertainties.Inthespecificcaseofmusicalworks, aparticularlythickparcelofvaryingintellectualpropertyrightsaddscomplexitytotheirrelease underthetermsofaCreativeCommonslicense:besidestheauthor’sexclusiveeconomicandmoral rightsthatmaysubsistinthemusicorlyricsthemselves,theperformanceofthemusicorlyricsand thephonogramontowhichthisperformancehasbeenfixatedwillalsobethesubjectofsoͲcalled neighbouringorrelatedrights.Accordingly,oneofthemainquestionsthatremainunanswered undertheBuma/StemrapilotprojectisthepositionofneighbouringrightͲholderswithinthescheme. IftheauthorsandpublishersoperatingwithintheconfinesoftheBuma/Stemraflexiblecollective managementschemegrantpermissionbymeansofaCreativeCommonslicensetoathirdpartyto freelyshare,useandbuildupontheirmusicalworkinanonͲcommercialmanner,whathappensto therightsoftheperformingartistwhobreatheslifeintothatworkoroftheproducerswhoinvestin theproductionofthephonogramsontowhichtheperformanceisthenfixated?Inordertofully releaseaphonogramfromtherightssubsistinginitaccordingtocopyrightandrelatedrights legislation,performersandphonogramproducersmustalsoagreetolicensetheirneighbouring rightsalongwiththeauthorbymeansofaCreativeCommonslicense.Butiftheychoosetodoso, aretheyaffordedthisoptionunderlaw? UndertheEuropeancopyrightdirectives,relatedrightͲownersaregrantedabroadrangeofexclusive economicrights,covering,broadlyspeaking,thefixation,communicationtothepublicand broadcastingbywirelessmeansofperformancesandthereproduction,distribution,rental,lending andmakingavailabletothepublicofthephonogramsontowhichtheseperformanceshavebeen fixated.Forthemostpart,thelicensingofusesprotectedbyexclusiverelatedrightsthroughthe applicationofCreativeCommonslicensesraisesissuesnodifferentfromthosepresentedinthecase ofauthor’srights.5 Inadditiontotheseexclusiverights,however,performersandphonogram producersarealsograntedarighttoequitableremunerationfortheuseoftheirphonogramsin communicationstothepublicorbroadcastingbywirelessmeans.Therighttoequitable remunerationisofparticularinterestinrelationtotheapplicationofCClicensestophonograms,asit hasbeenincorporatedintothenationallawofmanyEUMemberStatesintheformofa(waivableor nonͲwaivable)compulsorylicenseschemeforpurposesofmoreeffectiveenforcementand management.Evenwhereavoluntarylicenseschemeisinplacehowever,theflexibilitythatthiswill permittorightͲownersforthecombinationofdifferentmethodsofexploitingtheirrightsovertheir 4 For an analysis of the different clauses that can form part of a Creative Commons license and the six possible licenses that result from their combination, see below Part III, Introduction. 5 For a comprehensive analysis of what such issues might involve, see S. Dusollier, “Sharing Access to Intellectual Property through Private Ordering” (2007) 82(3) Chicago-Kent Law Review 1391. 2 performancesandphonogramswillbequestionableorlimited.Giventhiscontext,thequestionto addressisthefollowing:isthelegalframeworkofrelatedrightsandthecollectivemanagement systemsinplacefortheexploitationoftheserightscompatiblewiththeuseofCreativeCommons licenses?ItisimportanttonotethattheCreativeCommonslicensingsuiteaccommodatesthese divergingeventualitiesbyadoptinglicensingtermsthatenabletheattachmentofalicenseeven wheresuchschemesareinplace:inthecaseofnonͲwaivablecompulsorylicenseschemes,CC licensesestablishthatthelicensorreservestherighttocollectroyaltiesfortheexerciseoftherights grantedunderthelicense,whileifawaivablecompulsorylicenseschemeoravoluntarylicense schemeareinplace,theCClicensesstatethatthelicensorwaivesthisright. 6 Inordertoanswerthisquestion,inPartIofthepaperbelowwewilltakeadetailedlookatthe provisionsontherighttoequitableremunerationofperformersandphonogramproducersas establishedintheRomeConvention,theWIPOPerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty,theRental RightDirectiveandtheInfoSocDirective,aswellasthenationallegislationoftwoEUMemberStates. ForthispurposetheexamplesoftheNetherlandsandtheUKhavebeenselected.Thisshallbedone inordertopreciselydeterminethefieldofapplicationoftheright.Inordertoavoidconflatingthe fieldofapplicationoftherighttoequitableremunerationwiththatofthemakingavailableright, whichalsoinvolvesdisseminatingtheworktothepublic,theinternational,Europeanandnational (DutchandBritish)provisionsrelatedtothisrightwillalsobeexamined.Acleardivisionbetween actsthatfallwithintheambitoftheexclusivemakingavailablerightontheonehandandthe communicationtothepublicandbroadcastingthatactivatetherighttoequitableremunerationon theotherisparticularlyimportantgiventhefactthatnodistinctionismadeintheCClicenses themselvesbetweenthesedifferenttypesofuse.Asaresult,itisnotpossibletoattachalicensetoa phonogramthatonlyallowstheusertomakeitavailabletothepublic,butnottobroadcastitor communicateittothepublic,meaninginturnthatnoCClicensethatdoesnotimplicatetherightto equitableremunerationcurrentlyexists.InPartIIweshallthenproceedtoanexaminationofthe particularsofthecollectivemanagementregimessetupfortherighttoequitableremunerationin theNetherlandsandtheUK.Hereweshallalsoattempttoallocatethelicenseschemesforthe collectionanddistributionofequitableremunerationinthesetwoMemberStatestothecategories oflicenseschemesidentifiedintheCClicenses(nonͲwaivablecompulsorylicensescheme,waivable compulsorylicenseschemeandvoluntarycompulsorylicensescheme).Finally,inPartIII,wewill drawconclusionsastothecompatibilityofthetwosystems,thewayswithwhichrelatedrights shouldbehandledsoastoenablemaximumadvantageforbothrightͲholdersandusersfromthe applicationofCreativeCommonslicenses,theeffectsthatthecollectivemanagementoftherightto equitableremunerationhasonschemessuchastheBuma/Stemrapilotprojectandthenecessityof asimilarprojectintheareaofthecollectivemanagementofrelatedrights.Inordertoillustrate theseresults,theyshallbeappliedtotheexamplesoftwomusicͲrelatedinternetplatforms,Last.fm andSimuze.nl.Thefirstisaninternetradioandmusiccommunitywebsite,whilethesecondisan onlineopencontentcommunitywheremusicisuploadedbytheauthors/performersthemselves underthetermsofaCreativeCommonslicenseoftheirselection. 6 It should be noted that the terms in the CC licenses related to license schemes differ slightly depending on the type of license: According to CC licenses with a non-commercial clause, i.e. licenses that enable licensees to use the licensed work (and possibly derivative works based upon it) for non-commercial purposes only, in the case of waivable compulsory license schemes and voluntary license schemes, the licensor waives the right to collect royalties only for uses on the part of the licensee that are non-commercial, as defined in the license. 3 PartI:DefiningtheSubjectMatterofRelatedRightsinSoundRecordings 1.WhatisaPhonogramandaReproductionofaPhonogram?............................................................. 8 2.WhatisPublicationforCommercialPurposes? .................................................................................. 9 3.DisentanglingThreePossibleTransmissionModesforPhonograms ............................................... 11 3.1.HistoricalReasonsforFlexibleTerminologyinRelatedRights ......................................... 12 3.2.WhatisBroadcastingbyWirelessMeans? ....................................................................... 14 3.3.WhatisMakingAvailabletothePublic?........................................................................... 17 3.4.WhatisCommunicationtothePublic?............................................................................. 18 3.5.CorrectlyAllocatingSpecificActsofTransmissiontotheCorrectRight ........................... 20 A.Webcasting.............................................................................................................. 20 B.InternetRadio ......................................................................................................... 21 C.Simulcasting ............................................................................................................ 21 D.NearͲonͲDemandServices ...................................................................................... 22 E.OnͲDemandServices ............................................................................................... 23 F.Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 24 4 Introduction:TheLegalBackground InNovember1992,theCouncilofMinistersoftheEuropeanCommunityadoptedDirective 92/100/EC“onrentalrightandlendingrightandoncertainrightsrelatedtocopyrightinthefieldof intellectualproperty”,otherwiseknownastheRentalRightDirective.ItwasthesecondDirectiveto beadoptedontheEuropeanlevelinthefieldofcopyrightandrelatedrights,butthefirsttoattempt abroadandcomprehensiveharmonisationofrightsinthisarea. 7 Amongotherthings,theRental RightDirectiveintroducestotheEuropeanacquiscommunautairecertainneighbouringrights appertainingtodifferentcategoriesofrightͲholders,includingthereintherightsofbroadcastingand communicationtothepublicofperformersandphonogramproducers. AccordingtoArticle8(2)oftheEU’sRentalRightDirective 8 , “MemberStatesshallprovidearightinordertoensurethatasingleequitableremunerationispaid by the user, if a phonogram published for commercial purposes, or a reproduction of such phonogram,isusedforbroadcastingbywirelessmeansorforanycommunicationtothepublic,and to ensure that this remuneration is shared between the relevant performers and phonogram producers.” Thearticleintroducesaneconomicremunerationrighttothebenefitofperformingartistsand producersofsoundrecordingsfortheuseofsuchsoundrecordingsforbroadcastingor communicationtothepublic.Therightisdistinctiveinthatitinstitutesastatutorylicensein exchangeforequitableremuneration,therebyestablishingthat,contrarytowhatwouldbethecase withanexclusiveright,anybroadcastingorcommunicationtothepublicoftheworkispermissible, evenwithouttherightͲholder’sexplicitauthorisation,aslongasequitableremunerationispaidby theuser.Inpractice,equitableremunerationisusuallycollectedbycollectivemanagement organisationsonbehalfofperformersandphonogramproducers. Inadditiontotherighttoequitableremuneration,performersaregrantedaseriesofexclusiverights undertheEuropeanDirectives.Tobeginwith,Article8(1)RentalRightDirectivestatesthat, “MemberStatesshallprovideforperformerstheexclusiverighttoauthoriseorprohibitthe broadcastingbywirelessmeansandthecommunicationtothepublicoftheirperformances,except wheretheperformanceisitselfalreadyabroadcastperformanceorismadefromafixation.” Thearticlegrantsperformersanexclusiveright,i.e.arighttoauthoriseorprohibit,inrelationtothe broadcastingbywirelessmeansandcommunicationtothepublicofunfixedperformances(live performances).Thebroadcastingbywirelessmeansandcommunicationtothepublicof performancesthathavealreadybeenbroadcastorarefixationsofperformancesareexplicitly excludedfromthescopeoftheright,asare,byconsequence,therepeatedbroadcastingor rebroadcastingofthefirstbroadcastmadefromapersonalperformance. 9 Phonogramproducersare notprotectedundertheprovision,alogicalconsequenceoftheexclusionoffixedperformancesfrom thereachoftheright. 7 P.B. Hugenholtz, “Copyright without Frontiers: the Problem of Territoriality in European Copyright Law”, available at: http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/copyrightwithoutfrontiers.html. 8 Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property [2006] OJ L376/28 (hereafter: Rental Right Directive). 9 J. Reinbothe and S. van Lewinski, The EC Directive on Rental and Lending Rights and on Piracy (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1993) 95. 5 InMay2001,Directive2001/29/EC“ontheharmonisationofcertainaspectsofcopyrightandrelated rightsintheinformationsociety”wasadoptedbytheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncil.InArticle 3(2)theInfoSocDirective 10 providesthat, “MemberStatesshallprovidefortheexclusiverighttoauthoriseorprohibitthemakingavailableto thepublic,bywireorwirelessmeans,insuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthem fromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem:(a)forperformers,offixationsoftheir performances;(b)forphonogramproducers,oftheirphonograms;” Article3(2)InfoSocDirectivegrantsperformersandphonogramproducersanexclusiverighttothe makingavailabletothepublic,bywireorwirelessmeans,offixationsoftheirperformancesandtheir phonogramsrespectively,insuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthemfromaplace andatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.CorrectlydiagnosingwhenrightͲholdersareprotected withtheexclusivemakingavailablerightandwhenwiththerighttoequitableremunerationwill formasignificantpartoftheanalysisbelow. TheEuropeanprovisionsoncopyrightandrelatedrightsleanheavilyonthecorrespondingprovisions oftheinternationalWIPOTreaties.Article3(2)InfoSocDirectiveimplements 11 Articles10and14of theWIPOPerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty(WPPT) 12 ,whichwassignedinDecember1996. Theseprovidethefollowing: Article10:“Performersshallenjoytheexclusiverightofauthorizingthemakingavailabletothepublic oftheirperformancesfixedinphonograms,bywireorwirelessmeans,insuchawaythatmembersof thepublicmayaccessthemfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.” Article14:“Producersofphonogramsshallenjoytheexclusiverightofauthorizingthemaking availabletothepublicoftheirphonograms,bywireorwirelessmeans,insuchawaythatmembers ofthepublicmayaccessthemfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.” This‘new’makingavailablerightinfactdebutedinthe1996WIPOInternetTreaties,asanintegral partoftheir‘digitalagenda’,abidonthepartoftheContractingPartiestomodernisethe internationalcopyrightandrelatedrightsframeworkandaddresstheunconventionalavenuesfor exploitationopenedbymeansofinnovativetechnologies. TheWPPTalsoincludesaprovisionontherightofperformersandphonogramproducersto equitableremuneration.AccordingtoArticle15(1)WPPT: “Performersandproducersofphonogramsshallenjoytherighttoasingleequitableremunerationfor thedirectorindirectuseofphonogramspublishedforcommercialpurposesforbroadcastingorfor anycommunicationtothepublic.” Thehistoryoftherighttoequitableremunerationhoweveroriginallygoesbacktothe1961Rome Convention. 13 InArticle12,thisTreatystatesthefollowing: 10 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L167/10 (hereafter: InfoSoc Directive). 11 InfoSoc Directive, Recital 15. 12 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 20 May 2002) S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17 (1997) (hereafter: WPPT), Article 15. 13 International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (adopted 26 October 1961, entered into force 18 May 1964) 496 U.N.T.S. 43 (hereafter: Rome Convention), Article 12. 6 “Ifaphonogrampublishedforcommercialpurposes,orareproductionofsuchphonogram,isused directlyforbroadcastingorforanycommunicationtothepublic,asingleequitableremuneration shallbepaidbytheusertotheperformers,ortotheproducersofthephonograms,ortoboth. Domesticlawmay,intheabsenceofagreementbetweentheseparties,laydowntheconditionsasto thesharingofthisremuneration.” TheWIPOTreatiescreateinternationalobligationsamongcontractingstates 14 andaretherefore intendedtoregulateinternationalsituationsinvolvingcopyrightandrelatedrights.Suchsituations mayalsoarisebetweenEUMemberStateswhohavesignedandratifiedtheTreaties;whetherthe Treatiesandtheirdefinitionswillbedirectlyapplicableinsuchcaseswilldependonnational constitutionalprovisionsdictatinghowinternationaltreatiesaretobetransposedintodomesticlaw, aswellastheextenttowhichtheprovisionsoftheTreatiesthemselvescanbeseenasselfͲ executing. 15 Inanycase,theWIPOTreatieswillnotbedirectlyapplicabletodomesticdisputeswithin thejurisdictionsoftheindividualsignatorystates. Atthesametimehoweveritisimportanttonotethat,theRomeConventionbeingadoptedbefore theEU’sRentalRightDirective,itsprovisionshaddirecteffectontheoriginaltextoftheEuropean legislatorwhenthatDirectivewasfirstadoptedin1992.Thesameisnottrueoftheconsiderably youngerWPPT,althoughthesubsequent2001InfoSocDirectiveinRecital61requestedthe amendmentoftheRentalRightDirectivewithaviewtobringingitintofullcompliancewiththat Treaty.TheRentalRightDirectivewasindeedsubsequentlyamendedinaccordancewiththeWPPT in2001andeventuallycodifiedin2006.Inanycase,asopposedtotheWIPOTreaties,whichprovide elaboratesetsofdefinitionsfortherelevantlegalterms,theEuropeanacquiscontainsrelativelyfew rulesinthefieldofrelatedrights.TheEuropeanlawͲmakerseemsinsteadtohavereliedonthe harmonisingeffectoftheWIPOTreatiesonthelawsontheindividualMemberStates,inrelationto suchtermsas‘phonogram’,‘broadcasting’,‘communicationtothepublic’,‘makingavailable’or ‘publicationforcommercialpurposes.’ 16 Accordingly,intheanalysisbelow,thedefinitionsofthesubjectͲmatteroftherighttoequitable remunerationprovidedbythisinternational‘quasiͲacquis’ 17 shallbeexaminedinparalleltothose thatcanbefoundintheEUDirectivesthemselves,althoughprecedencewillbegiventothelatter.In addition,theimplementationoftheprovisionsinthelegislationofEUMemberStatesshallalsobe examined,soastodetectanydivergencesfromtheinternationalandEuropeannormindomestic legislation.Forthispurpose,therelevantrulesoftheDutchWetopdeNaburigeRechten (NeighbouringRightsAct–WNR) 18 andtheBritishCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct(CDPA) 19 shall beexamined,thoughthecorrespondinglawsofothercountriesmightalsobeinspectedwherethey 14 See Rome Convention, Article 4 and 5 and WPPT Article 3. M. Walter, “The Relationship of, and Comparison between, the Rome Convention, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement); the Evolution and Possible Improvement of the Protection of the Neighbouring Rights Recognized by the Rome Convention”, (2000) 34 (3) Copyright Bulletin 4. 16 B. Hugenholtz and others, “The Recasting of Copyright and Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy” (Institute for Information Law, November 2006), available at: http://www.ivir.nl/publications/other/IViR_Recast_Final_Report_2006.pdf, 31-32. 17 B. Hugenholtz and others, “The Recasting of Copyright and Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy” (Institute for Information Law, November 2006), available at: http://www.ivir.nl/publications/other/IViR_Recast_Final_Report_2006.pdf, 31. 18 Wet van 18 maart 1993, houdende regelen inzake de bescherming van uitvoerende kunstenaars, producenten van fonogrammen of van eerste vastleggingen van films en omroeporganisaties en wijziging van de Auteurswet 1912 [18 March 1993] Official Gazette 178 (hereafter: Wet op de Naburige Rechten or WNR). 19 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (ST 1988 c. 48) (hereafter: CDPA 1988). 15 7 canofferadditionalinsight.Onthiscount,itisimportanttokeepinmindthatArticle8(2)Rental RightDirectiveestablishesonlyminimumprotectionandthat,consequently,EUMemberStatesare freetogranttheownersofrelatedrightsmorefarͲreachingprotection,shouldtheychoosetodo so. 20 1.WhatisaPhonogramandaReproductionofaPhonogram? AccordingtotheWPPT,aphonogramis“thefixationofthesoundsofaperformanceorofother sounds,orofarepresentationofsounds,otherthanintheformofafixationincorporatedina cinematographicorotheraudiovisualwork”.Thisdefinitionisupdatedinrelationtothemorearchaic oneprovidedbytheRomeConvention,whichgives‘phonogram’as“anyexclusivelyauralfixationof soundsofaperformanceorofothersounds.” 21 Themaindifferenceconcernsitsextensiontothose phonogramsthatarenotafixation,butarepresentationofsounds,amodificationnecessaryinview ofdigitaltechnologiesthatenablethegenerationofsoundthroughthefixationofdata,evenifthe correspondingsoundshavenotexistedbefore. 22 Wethereforeconcludethatmusicalworksfound onlineindigitalformdoindeedqualifyasphonogramswithinthemeaningoftheWPPT. TheWPPTexcludesfromthedefinitionofaphonogramany“fixationincorporatedina cinematographicorotheraudiovisualwork”.Asaresult,theWIPOͲadministeredTreatiesdonot providearighttoremunerationforthebroadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicofrecordings withbothavisualandasoundelement. 23 Attentionmustbepaidtotheprecisewordinghowever,as itenablesprotectionincaseswhereanaudiovisualfixationdoesnotqualifyasacinematographicor otheraudiovisualworkforthefixationofthesoundsoftheperformance.Inaddition,Agreed Statement2oftheWPPTmakesclearthattherightsinphonogramsarenotaffectedbytheir incorporationintocinematographicorotheraudiovisualworks. 24 So,ifthesoundtrackforafilmis fixedseparatelyandonlylaterincorporatedintotheaudiovisualwork,equitableremunerationwill beduetotheperformersandproducersaccordingtotheWPPTforuseofthephonogramina broadcastorcommunicationtothepublic.Equitableremunerationwillalsobeduewhenthe soundtrackisnotreleasedasaseparatephonogram,ifthefilmdoesnotqualifyforprotectionasan audiovisualwork. Nodefinitionofeithertheexpression‘phonogram’or‘reproductionofaphonogram’isspecifically providedbytheEUcopyrightdirectives.ReinbotheandvonLewinskiassurethanalltechnical formatsandmethodsofrecordingarecovered,suchaspreͲrecordedmusiccassettes,LPsand compactdisks,andalsostatethat,aswiththeWPPT,audiovisualrecordings(‘videograms’)arenot included(although,asopposedtotheWPPT,nofurtherclarificationconcerningthepossibilityof separatefixationofthesoundfixationandlaterincorporationintoanaudiovisualworkisexplicitly made). ItisimportanttorememberthatArticle8(2)RentalRightDirectiveonlyoffersminimumprotection forrightͲholdersandconsequentlyEUMemberStatesarefreetoexpandprotectiontoinclude audiovisualfixations.ThishasbeenthecaseinGermany,whereremunerationiscollectedforthe 20 Rental Right Directive, Recital 16. Rome Convention, Article 3(b). 22 A. Lucas and H.J. Lucas, Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique (2nd edn. Litec, Paris 2001) 629 and M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva 2003) 234. 23 It should be noted that this makes sense from an etymological point of view as well, as the term “phonogram” is a compound noun, coined from the Greek “ĳȦȞȒ”, meaning “voice, sound”, and “ȖȡȐȝȝĮ”, meaning “something written”, and therefore refers solely to fixations of sound, rather than of visual elements. 24 M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva 2003) 235. 21 8 broadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicofmusicvideos,aswellasinSpain,Croatiaand Belgium,whereallaudiovisualfixationsarecovered. 25 IntheNetherlands,Article1(c)WNRdefinesaphonogramas“anyrecordingofthesoundsonlyofa performanceorofothersounds”.Thephrase‘soundsonly’couldbetakentoindicatethatfixations ofsoundwhichareincorporatedintoafilmatalaterdatetothatoftheoriginalfixationarealso covered,bringingtheDutchdefinitionclosetothatoftheWPPT.Thisinterpretationisconfirmedby theDutchliterature.Audiovisualrecordingsarenotprotected,althoughtheDutchcollectingsociety SENAhasunilaterallytakenituponitselftocollectequitableremunerationforvideoͲclipsaswell, alongthereasoningthattheseconstitutereproductionsofphonograms. 26 TheUK,followingthecommonlawtradition,doesnotusetheterm‘phonogram’initsrelevant provisionsatall.Instead,theexpression‘soundrecording’isemployed.Section5AoftheCDPA definesasoundrecordingas“(a)arecordingofsounds,fromwhichthesoundsmaybereproduced, or(b)arecordingofthewholeofanypartofaliterary,dramaticormusicalwork,fromwhichsounds reproducingtheworkorpartmaybeproduced,regardlessofthemediumonwhichtherecordingis madeorthemethodbywhichthesoundsarereproducedorproduced.” 27 Theuseofthetermsound recordingitselfimpliesthataudiovisualfixationsarenotprotectedbyarighttoequitable remuneration. 28 Section5BCDPAstatesthat“[t]hesoundtrackaccompanyingafilmshallbetreated aspartofthefilm”,butthatcopyrightsubsistinginafilmdoesnotaffect“anycopyrightsubsistingin afilmsoundtrackasasoundrecording”,bringingtheCDPAperfectlyintolinewiththeWPPT. 2.WhatisPublicationforCommercialPurposes? AccordingtoArticle2(e)WPPT,“‘publication’ofafixedperformanceoraphonogrammeansthe offeringofcopiesofthefixedperformanceorthephonogramtothepublic,withtheconsentofthe rightͲholder,andprovidedthatcopiesareofferedtothepublicinreasonablequantity”. Furthermore,accordingtoAgreedStatement(3)oftheTreaty,theword‘copies’inthiscontext exclusivelycoversfixedcopiesthatcanbeputintocirculationastangibleobjects.Theexpression ‘publication’,therefore,withinthemeaningoftheWPPT,wouldseemtocoversolelythetraditional methodofdistributionofphysicalcopiesofpreͲrecordedsoundrecordingsintheformofLPs, magnetictapesorCDsinaquantitysuitabletosatisfythereasonablerequirementsofthepublic. AccordingtotheprovisionsoftheWPPT,suchpublicationisrequiredtobefor“commercial purposes”.AcasualreadingoftheWPPTwould,atfirst,encourageidentifyingcommercialpurposes withfinancialgain;asRicketsonandGinsburgpointout,Article2(e)seemstoimplythat“publication couldtakeplacethroughthemeansofagratuitousdistributionor‘giveaway’,whereasthequalifying phrase‘forcommercialpurposes’impliesthatsomepecuniarybenefit,whetherornotintermsof money,shouldbeintended.” 29 Article15(4)oftheWPPThoweverintroducesaderogationfromthe 25 See, German Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act - UrhG), [9 September 1969] Official Gazette, Part I, p. 1273, Article 78§2 and Els Vanheusden, “Performers’ Rights in European Legislation: Situation and Elements for Improvement” (AEPO-ARTIS, June 2007), available at: http://www.aepo-ARTIS.org/usr/AEPOARTIS%20Studies/Study%20Performers%20Rights%20in%20Acquis_AEPO-ARTIS.pdf. 26 D.J.D. Visser, Naburige Rechten : van Uitvoerende Kunstenaars, Fonogrammenproducenten, Filmproducenten en Omroeporganisaties (W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Deventer 1999) 72; J. Spoor, D. Verkade and D. Visser, Austeursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenracht (Kluwer, Deventer 2005) 661. 27 CDPA, s. 5A. The definition is included in Part I of the Act on copyright, but its application is expanded to Part II on rights in performances as well, by means of the provision of s. 211(1). 28 See also above, ft 21. 29 S. Ricketson and J. Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond (OUP, New York 2006) 1268. 9 definitionofpublicationapplicabletotherestoftheTreatylimitedexclusivelytothecaseof equitableremuneration:“phonogramsmadeavailabletothepublicbywireorwirelessmeansin suchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthemfromaplaceandatatimeindividually chosenbythemshallbeconsideredasiftheyhadbeenpublishedforcommercialpurposes.” 30 A broaderdefinitionofpublicationforcommercialpurposesmustconsequentlybeadopted,which, apartfrompublicationforcommercialgain,alsoencompassesonlineonͲdemandservices.Inthe specificcaseofpublicationasdescribedinArticle15(4),thecommercialnatureofthepurposeisnot relevant.AsFicsorstates,thephonogram“istoberegardedasifithadbeenpublished[…]andasif thepublicationhadbeenforcommercialpurposes,irrespectiveofwhetherornotthereisany commercialpurposeorimpactatallbehindtheact.” 31 Suchadefinitionwillalsobeobligedtodefer tothedistinctionanalysedbelow(seePartI,Section3)betweentheactofcommunicationtothe public(whichwillnotnecessarilyconstitutecommercialpublication)andthatofmakingavailableto thepublic(whichalwayswill). Wemustthereforeconcludethat,publicationofaphonogramorafixedperformancewillconstitute publicationforcommercialpurposeswithinthemeaningofArticle15WPPT,wheneither: (a)aphonogramismadeavailablebywireorwirelessmeansthroughtheuseofanonͲdemand service,asexpresslyprovidedinArticle15(4)WPPT; or (b)whenphysicalcopiesofthefixedperformanceorthephonogramareofferedtothepublic,with theconsentoftherightͲholderinreasonablequantityandthisofferingisundertakenforcommercial purposes. AttheEuropeanlevel,Krikkeexplainsthatany“soundrecordingsproducedforcommercialgainand anyreproductionsofsuchrecordingsmayqualifyasphonogramspublishedforcommercial purposes.” 32 ShegoesontostatethatprivaterecordingsfrompreͲrecordedsoundrecordingsare coveredbytheterm,whilerecordingsnotmeanttobereleasedontothemarket,suchasrecordings whichareusedforthesolepurposeofrepeatedbroadcastsofunpublishedphonograms,donot qualifyaspublishedforcommercialpurposes.ReinbotheandvonLewinskidefinecommercial phonogramsas“allkindsofsoundrecordingswhichhavebeenpublishedinordertobeexploitedin themarketplace.” 33 CounterͲexamplesindicatingthetypeofphonogramthatdoesnotgiveriseto theremunerationrightincluderecordingsusedforthesolepurposeofrepeatedbroadcasts, unpublishedrecordingsandrecordingsmadebybroadcastingorganisationsformeredocumentation purposesorfordistributionasagifttofriends. Thedefiningnotionsofacommercialpublication,therefore,inthesenseoftheRentalRightDirective wouldseemtobethoseofcommercialgainandexploitationinthemarketplace.TheEUDirectives donotmitigatethisconclusionthoughtheinclusionofaprovisionequivalenttothatofArticle15(4) WPPT.Nevertheless,ashasbeennotedabove,Article8(2)RentalRightDirectiveonlyestablishesthe minimumlevelofprotectionthatrelatedrightͲownersshouldbeafforded;MemberStatesare 30 WPPT, Article 15(4). M. Ficsor, The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 WIPO Treaties, Their Interpretation and Implementation (OUP, New York 2002) 636. 32 J. Krikke, “Rental and Lending Right Directive” in T. Dreier and B. Hugenholtz (eds), Concise European Copyright Law (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2006) 254. 33 J. Reinbothe and S. van Lewinski, The EC Directive on Rental and Lending Rights and on Piracy (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1993) 96. 31 10 entitledtoexpandthisprotection,amongotherways,throughtheincorporationofaprovision similartoArticle15(4)WPPTintotheirnationalcopyrightframework. Accordingly,Article7(2)oftheDutchWNR,clarifiesthat,withinthemeaningofthefirstparagraphof thatarticle,whichintroducestherighttoequitableremuneration,aphonogrampublishedfor commercialpurposeswillbeunderstoodasincludingphonogramsmadeavailabletothepublic.The effectofthisprovisionisreinforcedbytheExplanatoryMemorandumtothelastamendmentofthe Act,whichmakesclearthatthiswillbethecaseevenifnocommercialintentionsunderlaytheactof makingavailable. 34 Similarly,intheUK,section182DCDPAstatesthatthe“publicationofasoundrecordingincludes makingitavailabletothepublicbyelectronictransmissioninsuchawaythatmembersofthepublic mayaccessitfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem”.Interpretationofthe commercialcharacterofsuchapublicationwillbedependentontherelevantprovisionsofBritish law.Accordingtos.175CDPA, 35 “”commercialpublication’means(a)issuingcopiesoftheworkto thepublicatatimewhencopiesmadeinadvanceofthereceiptofordersaregenerallyavailableto thepublic,or(b)makingtheworkavailabletothepublicbymeansofanelectronicretrievalsystem”. Section17stipulatesthattheterm‘copy’coverscopiesinelectronic,aswellasphysical,form. ReplicatingArticle15(4)intheirnationallegislationisnottheonlyrouteMemberStateshave followedsoastoachieveprotectionforabroadercategoryofphonogramsundertherightto equitableremuneration.Forexample,theGermanUrhG(CopyrightandNeighbouringRightsAct) grantsprotectionoveranykindofpublishedphonogram,regardlessofthepurposeforwhichitwas published,theonlylimitationbeingthat,ifthephonogramisusedinabroadcast,itmusthavebeen lawfullyrecordedonanimageorsoundcarrierthathaslawfullybeenmadeavailabletothepublic. 36 Similarly,inGreecetheonlyprerequisiteisthatthephonogrambe‘legallyrecorded.’ 37 3.ThreePossibleTransmissionModesforPhonograms Article8(2)oftheRentalRightDirectiveonlyrecognisesarighttoequitableremunerationwhena phonogramis“usedforbroadcastingbywirelessmeansorforanycommunicationtothepublic”.By contrast,Article3(2)oftheInfoSocDirectiveprovidesrelatedrightͲholderswithanexclusiveright coveringany“makingavailabletothepublic,bywireorwirelessmeans,insuchawaythatmembers ofthepublicmayaccessthemfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem”.Determining thereforethepreciseactsencompassedbyeachoftheterms‘communicationtothepublic’, ‘broadcasting’and‘makingavailable’isessentialforthecorrectdelimitationoftheArticles8(2) RentalRightDirectiveand3(2)InfoSocDirectiveandtherebyfortheaccuratedeterminationofwhen performersandphonogramproducerswillhaveanexclusiverightandwhensimplyarightto equitableremuneration.Ofparticularimportanceiscorrectlydistinguishingbetweenthetwonotions of‘communicationtothepublic’and‘makingavailable’;giventhatequitableremunerationis requiredbyArticle8(2)RentalRightDirectiveincaseofuseforbroadcastingandcommunicationto thepublicalike,thepracticalimplications(forthepurposesofthispaper)oftheaccuratedistinction betweenthesetwonotionsarefewer. 34 Parliamentary Report of the Dutch Lower Chamber, 2007/2008, 31 248, no. 3 (Explanatory Memorandum), p. 14. 35 The definition is included in Part I of the Act on copyright, but its application is expanded to Part II on rights in performances as well, by means of the provision of s. 211(1). 36 UrhG, Article 78. 37 ȃȩȝȠȢ Ȋʌ’ǹȡȚșȝȩȞ 2121/93, «ȆȞİȣȝĮĲȚțȒ ȚįȚȠțĲȘıȓĮ, ıȣȖȖİȞȚțȐ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮĲĮ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚĲȚıĲȚțȐ șȑȝĮĲĮ» (ĭǼȀ ǹ' 25/4-3-1993) ȐȡșȡȠ 49 (Law No. 2121/93, “Intellectual Property, Neighbouring Rights and Cultural Issues (Official Journal ǹ' 25/4-3-1993) Article 49. 11 Demarcatingthethreerightsofcommunicationtothepublic,broadcastingandmakingavailable, however,isacomplicatedundertaking.Thecontoursofthethreeshiftaccordingtothelegal framework–international,Europeanornational–withinwhichtheyareexamined,aswellas dependingonwhethertheyarediscussedwithinthecontextofcopyrightorrelatedrights.Aswe shallseebelow,onboththeinternationalandEuropeanlevel,inthefieldofrelatedrights,eachof thesethreenotionsisconsideredtobeselfͲstandingandindependentoftheothers.Bycontrast,in thefieldofcopyright,thecommunicationrightisthebroadercategory,embracingtheothertwo.To complicatemattersfurther,thiswillnotnecessarilybetheapproachtakenbynationalintellectual propertysystems.Thisflexibilityisnoaccident;tothecontrary,itwasanintegralpartofthestrategy followedbytheDiplomaticConferencethatledtotheadoptionofthetwoWIPOInternetTreaties, theintentionbeingenablingidenticalresults–i.e.thesametypeofprotectionforthesametypeof use–acrosstheboardofsignatorystates.Inotherwords,thecontentoftherightswasdeemed moreimportantthanidenticalterminology.Thesameapproachseemstohavebeenfollowedbythe Europeanlegislatoraswell. Belowweshallexaminethehistorybehindthiscomplexsituation.Wewillthentrytodeterminethe preciseoutlineofeachseparaterightintheinternational,Europeanandnationalcontextinthearea ofrelatedrights. 3.1.HistoricalReasonsforFlexibleTerminologyinRelatedRights DuringthepreparatoryworksfortheadoptionoftheWIPOInternetTreaties,aconsensusemerged amongtheparticipatingstatestotheeffectthatthetransmissionofworksthroughtheuseof interactivenewmediashouldindeedbetheobjectofanewexclusiveright.Nevertheless,agreement couldnotbereachedastothespecificrightthatshouldbeextendedtoembracesuchuses,although therightsofcommunicationtothepublicanddistributionwereidentifiedasthetwomajor candidates.Asaresult,compromisewassoughtintheadoptionofthesoͲcalled‘umbrella solution.’ 38 Thetermreferstotheneutral,legalͲcharacterisationͲfreedescriptionoftheactof interactivedigitaltransmissionthatdoesnottiethehandsofContractingPartiesastothe appropriatemodeoftranspositionintonationallegislation,whileprescribingthesameeffect(the grantingofanexclusiverighttotheownersofcopyrightandrelatedrightsalike)forallContracting Parties,whateverthesystemtheychoosetofollow.Thisneutraldescriptioncanbefoundinboththe WCTandWPPTandisasfollows:“themakingavailabletothepublicoftheirworks/performances fixedinphonograms/phonogramsinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccesstheseworks fromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.” InthecaseoftheWIPOCopyrightTreaty(WCT) 39 theumbrellasolutionwasnotfullyapplied. Instead,theneutraldescriptionoftheactofmakingavailablewasincorporatedintoArticle8aspart oftheauthor’sexclusiverightofcommunicationtothepublic.Therightofcommunicationtothe publicinthesenseofArticle8WCTalsoincludesbroadcasting. 40 Atthesametime,however,itwas statedintheDiplomaticConferencethatContractingPartiesarefreetoimplementtheobligationto provideanexclusivemakingavailablerightcoveringinteractivetransmissionsthroughthe applicationofarightotherthanthatcommunicationrightorthroughacombinationofrights. 41 Ifthe sameapproachhadbeenfollowedduringthedraftingoftheWPPTandthecommunicationrighthad 38 “WIPO Handbook on Intellectual Property” (2nd edn., WIPO Publication No. 489(E) 2004), available at: http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/iprm/. 39 WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 6 March 2002) S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17 (1997) (hereafter: WCT). 40 Entry on “Broadcasting, right of ~” in M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (WIPO, Geneva 2003) 270. 41 WCT, Article 8. 12 beendesignedasincludingtherightofmakingavailableinthefieldofrelatedrightsaswell,an equitableremunerationwouldindeedhavebeendueforthedigitalinteractivetransmissionofa fixedperformanceovertheinternet. WithintheWPPT,however,theapplicationofthe‘umbrellasolution’wasdifferent.AsFicsor explains,amajorityofcountrieswerenotpreparedtofurnishphonogramproducerswithexclusive rightswithrespecttocommunicationtothepublicandbroadcasting.Bycontrast,inthecaseof interactivetransmissions,anexclusiverightwasdeemedindispensable. 42 Asaresult,intheWPPTwe seewhathasbeentermedthe‘fullyͲfledged’applicationofthe‘umbrellasolution’:aselfͲstanding exclusive‘makingavailable’rightisgrantedinArticle10forperformersandArticle14forphonogram producers,usingtheneutraldescriptionofinteractivedigitaltransmissionsdirectly.The communicationrightishandledseparatelyinArticle6,whereanexclusiverightisprovidedfor performersfortheirunfixedperformances,exceptwheretheperformanceisalreadyabroadcast performance,andArticle15,wherearighttoequitableremunerationisgrantedtobothphonogram producersandperformers.UndertheWPPT,asopposedtotheWCT,thedivisionoftheexclusive rightsofcommunicationtothepublicandmakingavailabletothepublicintotwoseparatearticles makesclearthattheexpression‘communicationtothepublic’doesnotincorporatetherightof makingavailablethroughinteractivedigitaltransmissions.43 WethereforeconcludethatArticle15 WPPTestablishesnorightforequitableremunerationforperformersandphonogramproducersin thecaseofdirectorindirectuseofphonogramspublishedforcommercialpurposesfortheirmaking availabletothepublicbywireorwirelessmeansinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmay accessthemfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.Inotherwords,onthe internationallevel,noequitableremunerationisduefortransmissionsonanonͲdemandbasis. Nationallegislators,however,stillenjoyflexibilityastothelegalcharacterisationoftheexclusive makingavailablerightofperformersandphonogramproducersandmaychoosetoprovideitnot onlythroughtheestablishmentofaseparateright,butalsothroughtheapplicationofanotherright, suchasthecommunicationright,orofacombinationofrights. 44 TurningtotheEuropeansituation,Article3(2)oftheInfoSocDirectivetransposesintoEUlawthe makingavailablerightofArticles10and14WPPT.LiketheWPPT,Article3(2)doesnotgrant neighbouringrightͲholdersthemoregeneralrightofcommunicationtothepublic,which,in conformitywiththeArticle8WCT‘halfͲopenedumbrella’approach,isofferedtotheholdersof authors’rightsinArticle3(1)oftheDirective. 45 NoprovisioncorrespondingtoArticle6WPPThadto beintroducedtotheacquis,asperformers(butnotphonogramproducers)alreadybenefitedfrom anexclusiverightforthecommunicationtothepublicoftheirunfixedperformances,ascodifiedin Article8(1)oftheRentalRightDirective. 46 Thus,the‘fullyͲfledgedumbrella’approachoftheWPPT hasbeenadoptedunmodifiedintheEuropeancopyrightdirectives.Consequently,theterm ‘communicationtothepublic’,asusedinArticle8(2)RentalRightDirective,shouldbetakento excludethemakingavailabletothepublicbywireorwirelessmeansinsuchawaythatmembersof thepublicmaygainaccessfromaplaceandatimeindividuallychosenbythem.Eachofthethree rights,i.e.communicationtothepublic,broadcastingandmakingavailable,areasseparatefrom eachotherintheEuropeanarenaasintheinternationalone.Ergo,withintheEU,theonlineonͲ 42 M. Ficsor, The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 WIPO Treaties, Their Interpretation and Implementation (OUP, New York 2002) 628 and 629. 43 S. Ricketson and J. Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond (OUP, New York 2006) 1246. 44 M. Ficsor in D. Gervais (ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2006) 56. 45 S. Bechtold in T. Dreier and B. Hugenholtz (eds), Concise European Copyright Law (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2006) 360. 46 S. Bechtold in T. Dreier and B. Hugenholtz (eds), Concise European Copyright Law (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2006) 362. 13 demandofferingofsoundrecordingsshouldnotbetakentogiverisetoarightforequitable remuneration. ThiswillnotnecessarilybetheapproachtakenbytheindividualEUMemberStates–although,as alreadymentioned,giventhatArticle8(2)RentalRightDirectiveintroducesaminimumprotection provision,theactualcontentoftherightmayneverbemorelimitedwhateverthestrategyfollowed tointroduceit.So,forexample,initsBritishimplementation,thecommunicationrightextendsto boththebroadcastingandthemakingavailabletothepublicoftheworkbyelectronictransmission insuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessitfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosen bythem.Thisgeneraldefinitionappliesbothtoworksprotectedbycopyrightandtosound recordingsprotectedbyrelatedrights. 47 TheCopyright,DesignsandPatentsActinsteadspecifically prohibits,ins.182D,aremunerationobligationfortheactofmakingavailable.Thesamerouteis takenbytheDutchlegislator,whoinArticle2(1)(d)oftheDutchNeighbouringRightsActlistsmaking availableamongthepossibleformsofexpressionthattheactofcommunicationtothepubliccan take.Article7(1)thengrantstheproducerorperformerarighttoequitableremunerationwhena phonogramis“broadcastorotherwisecommunicatedtothepublic”,butspecifiesthatitsprovisions donotapplytothemakingavailableofphonogramstothepublic. Onthebasisoftheaboveanalysis,thefollowingpertinentquestionarises:whattypesof transmissioncorrespondtowhichofthesethreeseparate–inthecaseofrelatedrights–legal constructionsoftherightofcommunicationtothepublic,thebroadcastingrightandtherightof makingavailabletothepublic?If,accordingtotheEUDirectives,equitableremunerationispaid whenaphonogramisbroadcastorcommunicatedtothepublic,butanexclusiverightisgranted whenitismadeavailabletothepublic,whichspecificactsof(digitalortraditional)deliverydoeach ofthesetermsencompassandwheredotheboundariesbetweenthemlie?Inotherwords,for preciselywhatuseisremunerationowedandforwhatisanexclusiverightgranted?Abovewe explainedthelegalterminologyemployedintheareaofrelatedrightsinphonogramsandthe relationshipbetweenthethreetermsonthreedifferentlevelsoflegalhierarchy.Belowwewill examinetheactsthatthesetermsqualify.Particularlyinviewoftheflexibilitygrantedunderthe umbrellasolutiontonationallegislatorsastothelegalcharacterisationofactsofdissemination, ascertainingtheprecisecontenthiddenbehindoftenvaryingsolutionsandterminologygathers especialsignificance. 3.2.WhatisBroadcastingbyWirelessMeans? AccordingtothedefinitionprovidedbytheRomeConvention,“’broadcasting’meansthe transmissionbywirelessmeansforpublicreceptionofsoundsorofimagesandsounds.” 48 Themore recentWPPTgivesamoreupͲtoͲdatedefinition,inthemainpartinheritedfromtheRome Convention:“’broadcasting’meansthetransmissionbywirelessmeansforpublicreceptionof soundsorofimagesandsoundsoroftherepresentationsthereof”.TheWPPTalsodiffersfromthe RomeConvention 49 inthatitincludes‘rebroadcasting’withintheconceptof‘broadcasting.’ 50 Inthe RomeConventionrebroadcastingisaffordeditsownseparatedefinitionas“thesimultaneous broadcastingbyonebroadcastingorganisationofthebroadcastofanotherbroadcasting organisation”.GiventhatrebroadcastingisnotspecificallymentionedinArticle12oftheRome 47 CDPA 1988, ss. 20, 182D, 211; See also L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (OUP, Oxford 2004) 144. 48 Rome Convention, Article 3(f). 49 The Rome Convention defines rebroadcasting as “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organisation of the broadcast of another broadcasting organisation”. 50 M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms WIPO), Geneva 2003) 236 and M. Ficsor, The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 WIPO Treaties, Their Interpretation and Implementation (OUP, New York 2002) 636. 14 Convention,norighttoequitableremunerationthusarisesundertheRomeConventionwhena phonogramisrebroadcast.Tothecontrary,rebroadcastingwillbeprotectedwitharighttoequitable remunerationundertheWPPT.TheWPPTalsomakesexplicitthattransmissionbysatelliteshouldbe encompassedbytheterm,asshouldencryptedsatellitebroadcasting“wherethemeansfor decryptingareprovidedtothepublicbythebroadcastingorganizationorwithitsconsent.” 51 Giventhisdefinition,itfollowsthatbroadcastingintheWIPOsensecoversallanalogue transmissions,i.e.terrestrialandsatelliteservices.Online/internettransmissionsontheotherhand, aswellascablecasting,areexcludedbydintoftheirwirednature. 52 Digitaltransmissionsarecovered bytheterm,seeingassuchtransmissionstakeplaceonradiofrequenciesthroughtheairways. Finally,itisworthpointingoutthatthephrase‘publicreception’,usedinthedefinitionofboththe RomeConventionandtheWPPT,isnotentirelyaccurate.Theexpressionwouldseemtosuggestthat theactofreceptionmusttakeplaceinthepresenceofagroupofpeoplecorrespondingtothepublic or,atleast,ataplaceopentothepublic.Yet,ascommentatorshaveobserved,thereisnoindication intherecordsofthe1961RomeDiplomaticConferencethatthiswasindeedtheintended meaning. 53 Thewordingshouldthereforebeacceptedasadraftingerrorandthedefinitiontakento correspondtothatoftheBerneConvention,thatistosay“acommunicationtothepublicbyany meansofwirelessdiffusionofsigns,soundsorimages.” 54 Indeed,asmentionedabove,thebasic natureofbroadcastingisgenerallytakentobethatofamethodofcommunicationtopublic,despite thefactthatspecificallyintheareaofrelatedrightsandintheinternationalcontext,broadcastingis heldapartasaseparatecategoryinitsownright,ratherthanasubspeciesofabroaderconcept. Thequestionthatthencomestotheforeiswhatpreciselyismeantbyreferenceto‘thepublic’?No expressdefinitionisprovidedbytheWIPOͲadministeredtreaties,buttheWIPOGlossarydoes explainthat“’thepublic’isagroupconsistingofasubstantialnumberofpersonsoutsidethenormal circleofafamilyanditsclosestsocialacquaintances”.Itisnotrelevantwhetherthemembersofthe publicareallgatheredinonelocationorthereceptioncanoccurinmultipledifferentplacesand times.Legalscholarsalsopointoutthat“anygroupcomprisingthe‘nonpublic’(forexample,the traditional‘familycircle’)shouldbeeconomicallyinsignificant.” 55 Inanycase,thenatureof broadcastingitselfissuchthatdiffusionwillalwaystakeplaceamongawideaudience,renderinga precisedefinitionof‘thepublic’amutepoint.Aswillbeseebelow(PartI,Section3.3),thatisnot necessarilysowiththerightsofcommunicationtothepublicandmakingavailabletothepublic. Noharmoniseddefinitionofbroadcastingasanactrestrictedbycopyrightandrelatedrightsexists withintheEuropeanacquis.Insteadinterpretationislefttotheindividualcourtsandlegislatorsof theMemberStates. 56 Nevertheless,itwouldseemthat,intheEU,thetermbroadcastingisbroader thanthatgivenbytheWIPOTreaties,asisindicatedbyitsexpresslimitationtowirelessmeansin 51 WPPT, Article 2(f). See also, WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, “The WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations” (17th Session, Geneva, 3 to 7 November 2008). 53 M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (WIPO, Geneva 2003) 236. 54 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886, came into force 5 December 1887) S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27, as amended, (hereafter: Berne Convention) Article 11bis(1). 55 J. Ginsburg, “The (New?) Right of Making Available to the Public?” in D. Vaver and L. Bently, Intellectual Property in the New Millennium (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004) 236. 56 B. Hugenholtz and others, “The Recasting of Copyright and Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy” (Institute for Information Law, November 2006), available at: http://www.ivir.nl/publications/other/IViR_Recast_Final_Report_2006.pdf. 52 15 Article8(2)oftheRentalRightDirective. 57 Regardless,Article8(2)isonlyaminimumprotection provision,whichleavesMemberStatesfreetoexpandthescopeofprotectiontotheirlikingand therebyalsototransmissionsviawire. 58 Theterm‘broadcastingbywirelessmeans’,therefore,inthe senseoftheRentalRightDirective,shouldbetakentocorrespondtotheterm‘broadcasting’inthe RomeConvention,coveringalldigitalandanaloguetransmissions,whetherterrestrialorsatellite. 59 AccordingtotheRentalRightDirective,theequitableremunerationrightwillarisebothforindirect anddirectusesofaphonogramforbroadcasting. 60 Directuseofaphonogramforbroadcasting referstothecasewhereabroadcastismadedirectlyonthebasisofaphonogram.Indirectuserefers tothecasewhereaphonogramisusedforabroadcastwhichissubsequentlyrebroadcastby anotherbroadcastingorganisation. 61 Thenotionof‘public’islikewisenotdefinedbytheEUDirectives,althoughtheEuropeanCourtof Justicehasdealtwiththequestioninaseriesofcaselaw.In‘LagardèreActiveBroadcast’, 62 theCourt statedthatinthecontextofacommunicationtothepublicbysatellite,‘thepublic’willconsistof“an indeterminatenumberofpotentiallisteners”.Giventhat‘communicationtothepublicbysatellite’ shouldbetakentobeaformofbroadcastingandgivenmoreoverthatthisinterpretationisinline withotherCourtrulingsdealingwithaudiovisualbroadcasting(‘Mediakabel’63 )andcommunication tothepublic(‘SGAE’64 ),wecancomfortablyassumethatinrelationtobroadcastinginageneral sensetheconceptof‘thepublic’wouldbeidenticallydefinedbytheECJ. Inanycase,giventheabsenceofaharmonisedEUdefinitionofbroadcasting,nationallawtakes centrestage.Article1(g)oftheDutchNeighbouringRightsActgivesaverytechnicaldefinitionof broadcastingas“thedistributionofprogrammesbymeansofatransmitter[…]orabroadcasting network.”Theterms‘transmitter’and‘broadcastingnetwork’arefurtherdefinedinsectionsofthe MediaLawandTelecommunicationsLaw. 65 Asforthenotionof‘thepublic’,inArticle1,inrelationto therightofcommunicationtothepublic,itisnotedthatthisincludes“arestrictedcircle,except wherethisisconfinedtorelatives,friendsorequivalentpersonsandnoformofpaymentwhatsoever ismadeforattendance.” 66 ConfusionexistsastowhetherrebroadcastingiscoveredbytheDutch provisionsontherighttoequitableremuneration:theActprovidesaseparatedefinitionfor 57 The AVMS Directive reinforces this perception by including no reference to wireless means in its definition of ‘television broadcasting’ as “an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for simultaneous viewing of programmes on the basis of a programme schedule.” See: Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities [2007] OJ L 332/27 (hereafter: AVMS Directive). 58 J. Reinbothe and S. van Lewinski, The EC Directive on Rental and Lending Rights and on Piracy (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1993) 97. 59 The inclusion of satellite broadcasting in the term ‘broadcasting by wireless means’ within the meaning of the Rental Right Directive is confirmed by Article 4(2) of the SatCab Directive (Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, [1993] OJ L248/15). 60 The Rome Convention limits application to direct uses alone. The WPPT expands application to indirect uses explicitly. In the case of the Rental Right Directive this expansion is implied, as the Member States thought it unnecessary to make explicit the inclusion of both forms. 61 J. Reinbothe and S. van Lewinski, The EC Directive on Rental and Lending Rights and on Piracy (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1993) 97. 62 Case C-192/04 Lagardère Active Broadcast v SPRE, GVL & CERT (ECJ 14 July 2005). 63 Case C-306/05 Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA (ECJ 7 December 2006). 64 Case C-89/04 Mediakabel BV v Commissariaat voor de Media (ECJ 2 June 2005). 65 Mediawet, Article 1, subsections o and q and Telecommunicatiewet, Article 1.1, subsections e and ii. 66 WNR, Article 2(7). 16 rebroadcastingthanthatgiventobroadcastinginArticle1(h),butnomentionofrebroadcastingis madebyArticle7ontherighttoequitableremuneration. IntheUK,theCDPAdefinesbroadcastingas“anelectronictransmissionofvisualimages,soundsor otherinformationwhich(a)istransmittedforsimultaneousreceptionbymembersofthepublicand iscapableofbeinglawfullyreceivedbythem,or(b)istransmittedatatimedeterminedsolelybythe personmakingthetransmissionforpresentationtomembersofthepublic.” 67 Thisdefinition encompassesdigitalanalogue,terrestrialandsatellitetransmissions.Internettransmissionsare expresslyexcluded.Encryptedtransmissionsareincludediftheymaybereceivedbysubscriberswho havereceivedadecoder.68 3.3.WhatisMakingAvailabletothePublic? Articles10and14WPPTfirstintroducedtherightofmakingavailabletotheinternationallegal scene.Theyestablishthattherightcovers“themakingavailabletothepublic[…]bywireorwireless means,insuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccessthemfromaplaceandatatime individuallychosenbythem.”NodefinitionofthemakingavailablerightexistsintheRome Convention. Article3(2)oftheInfoSocDirectiveadoptstheexactsamedefinitionasthatoftheWPPT.Onthis basis,accordingtoBechtold, 69 thecharacteristicfeaturesofthemakingavailablerightare: (a)Themakingavailableofthework,i.e.theactofprovidingtheworktothepublic.The user’ssubsequentretrievaloftheworkisirrelevantfortheapplicationoftheright;the exclusiverightexistsirrespectiveofwhetherandinwhatmannertheworkisactually accessed; (b)Thelimitationoftherighttomakingworksavailabletothepublic(seeabove,PartII, Section1); (c)Thepossibilityformembersofthepublictoaccesstheworkatatimeandfromaplace individuallychosenbythem,i.e.throughthemeansofaninteractive,onͲdemand 70 service. 71 Wethereforeconcludethat,ontheEUlevel,theprovisionofasoundrecordingtothepublicthrough interactive,onͲdemandservicesleadstotheapplicationoftheexclusiverightofmakingavailable anddoesnotconstitutecommunicationtothepublic.Intheoppositecase,whentheserviceislinear andnosuchindividualcontrolisofferedtotheuser,thepossibleapplicationofthecommunication rightshouldinsteadbeinvestigated. TheWPPTdefinitionof‘makingavailable’hasalsobeenincorporatedvirtuallyunchangedintothe nationallawofthecontractingstates.Forexample,intheNetherlands,therightisdefinedasthe 67 CDPA, s. 6(1) L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (OUP, Oxford 2004) 144. 69 S. Bechtold, “Information Society Directive” in T. Dreier and B. Hugenholtz (eds), Concise European Copyright Law (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2006) 361. 70 The Oxford English Dictionary defines the expression ‘on-demand’ as something “done or available when required or requested; providing or requiring a commodity, service, etc.,” when required or requested. However, in the copyright and related rights context it is important to remember that, as the WIPO Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (see above ft.22) explains, the term will often be used as “a synonym of making available to the public in the sense in which that term is used in the provision on the right of making available to the public”. 71 See Commission Recommendation of 18 May 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services [2005] OJ L 276/54 (hereafter: Online Music Recommendation, Recital (f)(iii). 68 17 “makingmaterialprotected[bytheDutchNeighbouringRightsAct]availabletothepublicbymeans ofwiredorwirelessconnectioninsuchamannerthattheyhaveaccesstoitatsuchtimeandplaceas theymightindividuallyselect.” 72 IntheUK,therightisdefinedasthemaking“availabletothepublic […]byelectronictransmissioninsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccesstherecording fromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.” 73 3.4.WhatisCommunicationtothePublic? AccordingtoArticle2(g)WPPT,thecommunicationtothepublicofaperformanceoraphonogram means“thetransmissiontothepublicbyanymedium,otherwisethanbybroadcasting,ofsoundsof aperformanceorthesoundsortherepresentationsofsoundsfixedinaphonogram.”Nodefinition oftherightexistsintheRomeConvention.Masouyé,inhisanalysisoftheConvention,crisply outlinestherightasthetransmissionofaphonogram“byloudspeakersorbywire.” 74 Itshouldbe notedfromtheonsetthat,ontheinternationallevel,theWPPTandtheRomeConventiondirect,in theareaofrelatedrights,thetermawayfromthemeaningthathasbeenassignedtoitinthe contextofcopyright,asgovernedbytheWCTandtheBerneConvention.Tobespecific,inrelated rights: (a)Themakingavailablerightisnotincludedwithinthescopeofthecommunicationright (seeabovePartI,Section3.1). (b)Broadcastingislikewisenotincludedwithinthescopeofthecommunicationright–in factitisexplicitlyexcludedbyArticle2(g)itself. (c)Localcommunicationtothepublic,i.e.communicationinthepresenceofthepublicorat aplaceopentothepublicthroughsometechnicalmeansorprocess,isincluded. 75 Inthecaseofcopyright,thelatterwouldnormallyqualifyastheseparateexclusiverightofpublic performance,recitationordisplay. 76 However,theverynatureofrightsinfixedperformancesand phonogramsmeansthatevenlocalcommunicationtothepublicwillbydefinitionalwaysbe conductedthroughtechnicalmeans,makingthedistinctionbetweenpublicperformanceand communicationtothepublicredundant.Nevertheless,itisimportanttokeepthisdisparityinmind, especiallywhenanalysingthelanguageusedinnationallaw,wheretherelevanttermsoftencarry slightlydifferentmeanings. Inanycase,theimportantthingtotakeawayfromthedefinitionofArticle2(g)WPPTisthatthe provisionofasoundrecordingtothepublicthroughanymediumwillconstitutecommunicationto thepublic,aslongasitisnotthrougheitherbroadcasting(whichgivesrisetoarighttoequitable remunerationanywayofitsownright)oronͲdemandservices(whichwillprovidetherightͲholder withanexclusivemakingavailablerightinstead).Amongothers,thismeansthatthecommunication rightisseenascoveringcabletransmissions, 77 onlinetransmissions,aswellastheplayingofthe phonograminapublicplace,asforexampleinarestaurant,bar,pub,etc. OntotheEuropeanlevel,Recital23oftheInfoSocDirectivestatesthatcommunicationtothepublic “shouldbeunderstoodinabroadsensecoveringallcommunicationtothepublicnotpresentatthe 72 WNR, Article 1(m). CDPA, s. 182CA. 74 C. Masouyé, Guide to the Rome Convention and to the Phonograms Convention (WIPO, 1981) 36. 75 Entry on “communication to the public, right of ~” in M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (WIPO, Geneva 2003) 275. 76 Berne Convention, Article 11(1)(i) and 11ter(1)(i). 77 Entry on “cablecasting” in M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (WIPO, Geneva 2003) 271. 73 18 placewherethecommunicationoriginates.”Thiswillinclude,accordingtoBechtold,transmissionof apublicperformanceviatechnicalmeans,e.g.toanaudienceinanadjacentroom. 78 Inthefieldof relatedrights,asgovernedbytheRentalRightDirective,similartowhathappensonthe internationallevelandincompliancewiththe‘fullyͲfledgedumbrella’approachanalysedabove, communicationtothepublicreferstotheplayingaphonogramtothepublicbyanymediumother thanbroadcastingandinanonͲonͲdemandmanner. Aswithbroadcasting,itshouldbenotedthat,withinthemeaningoftheRentalRightDirective,such usemaybemadeeitherdirectlyorindirectly.Directusereferstothesituationinwhichaphonogram isplayeddirectlyinapublicplace,suchasarestaurant,supermarketordepartmentstore,while indirectusereferstotheuseofaphonograme.g.foraradiobroadcastwhichisthenplayedina publicplace. 79 Finally,thedefinitionofpublic,bothinthecaseofthecommunicationandthemakingavailable right,willbethesameasunder‘broadcasting’(seeabove,PartI,Section3.1).Asopposedto broadcasting,however,giventhatcommunicationofasoundrecordingtoasmallgroupofpeopleis possible(e.g.playingaCDatafamilygathering),asisitsmakingavailable(e.g.sendinganemail containingaudiofilesinattachmenttoafriendorpostingitonaMySpaceprofile)theprecise opennessorclosenessofthedefinitionbecomesfarmorecritical. MemberStatestotheEUboastindividualdefinitionsoftheterm‘communicationtothepublic’that donotconfirmwiththemeaningappointedtoitintheEuropeanacquis. 80 IntheNetherlands,no definitivedemarcationofthecommunicationrightisprovidedbytheNeighbouringRightsAct, althoughArticle2(1)(d)doesspecifythatthebroadcasting,rebroadcastingandmakingavailableto thepublicofaphonogramare,amongothers,coveredbytheterm. 81 Vissergivesanindicationof whatsuchotherformsmightbebyexplainingthatthecommunicationrightwouldalsocoverplaying aphonograminapublicplace,suchasacaféoradepartmentstore. 82 TheDutchdefinitionof communicationtothepublicintheareaofrelatedrightsseems,therefore,tobeclosetothe definitionassignedtotheterminthecopyrightcontextontheEuropeanandinternationallevel. Dutchlegislationcompensatesforthisexpansivedefinitionbyprovidingthatequitableremuneration isduewhenaphonogramisbroadcast,rebroadcastorcommunicatedtothepublic,otherwisethan bybeingmadeavailabletothepublic,thusneatlyaligningArticle7WNRwithArticle8(2)ofthe RentalRightDirective. IntheUK,communicationtothepublicisdefinedbys.20CDPAas“communicationtothepublicby electronictransmission,andinrelationtoawork[thetermincludes](a)thebroadcastingofthe work;(b)themakingavailabletothepublicoftheworkbyelectronictransmissioninsuchawaythat membersofthepublicmayaccessitfromaplaceandatatimeindividuallychosenbythem.”83 As opposedtotheextraordinarilybroadDutchdefinitionofcommunicationtothepublic,therefore,in theUKintheareaofrelatedrightstherightofcommunicationtothepublicismorecircumscribed thanunderEuropeanlaw,asitdoesnotextendtoothermethodsoftransmissiontoapublicnot presentattheplacewherethecommunicationoriginates.Forthisreason,s.182DCDPAalso 78 S. Bechtold in T. Dreier and B. Hugenholtz (eds), Concise European Copyright Law (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2006) 360 79 J. Reinbothe and S. van Lewinski, The EC Directive on Rental and Lending Rights and on Piracy (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1993) 97. 80 See above, Part I, Section 3.1, for an analysis of the reasons behind this situation. 81 WNR, Article 2(1)(d). 82 D.J.D. Visser, Naburige Rechten : van Uitvoerende Kunstenaars, Fonogrammenproducenten, Filmproducenten en Omroeporganisaties (W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Deventer 1999) 74. 83 CDPA, ss. 20. The definition is included in Part I of the Act on copyright, but its application is expanded to Part II on rights in performances as well, by means of the provision of s. 211(1). 19 stipulatesthatarighttoequitableremunerationisduetoperformerswhentheirsoundrecordingis notonlycommunicatedtothepublicinawayotherthanbybeingmadeavailabletothepublic,but alsowhenitisplayedinpublic. 3.5.CorrectlyAllocatingSpecificActstotheCorrectRight Inpracticalterms,whattypeofservicewillbeanonͲdemandoneandwhatnot?TheOnlineMusic Recommendationof2005 84 givesusanindicationastowhattypesoftechnologyfallintowhich category.AccordingtoRecital(f)(ii),therightofcommunicationtothepublicofamusicalwork,as appliedtotherighttoequitableremuneration,includeswebcasting,internetradio,simulcastingand nearͲonͲdemandservicesreceivedeitheronapersonalcomputeroronamobiletelephone.Wewill nowexamineeachoneoftheseactivitiesseparately.ItshouldbenotedinadvancethatnofastͲandͲ steadylegaldefinitionofanyofthesetermscurrentlyexists.Theconceptsandusestowhichthe technologycanbeputarestillevolving. TheanalysisbelowwillonlyattempttodeducethemeaningofthetermswithintheEUcontext. A.Webcasting AccordingtotheOxfordEnglishDictionary,webcastingis“broadcastingovertheInternet,esp.the transmissionofavideosignalthatisviewableinrealtimebymultipleusersofawebsite;(also)the actionorpracticeofdisseminatinginformationovertheInternetusingpushtechnology”,whilea webcastisa“livebroadcasttransmittedovertheInternet”.Awebcastisthereforeseenasa mechanismforthe‘pushing’ofcontenttotheconsumer,ratherthanthe‘pulling’ofcontentfroma viewerthathasactivelysoughtitout. 85 Thereferencetopushtechnology,thecomparisonwith broadcasting,aswellastheuseofthewords‘realtime’and‘live’intheOEDentrywouldallseemto suggestthatwebcastingisindeed,asstatedintheCommission’sRecommendation,notan interactive,onͲdemandservice. Similarly,Wikipediaexplainsthat“[e]ssentially,webcastingis‘broadcasting’overtheInternet, throughtheuseofstreamingmediatechnology.Thegenerallyaccepteduseofthetermwebcastis the‘transmissionoflinearaudioorvideocontentovertheInternet’".‘Linear’isanexpressionusually usedastheoppositeofonͲdemand, 86 furthergivingcredencetotheviewthatwebcastingqualifies ascommunicationofcontenttothepublic,ratherthanitsmakingavailable,anddoesgiverisetoa righttoequitableremunerationforthephonogramproducerandtheperformer. Nevertheless,confusionseemstostillexistastothecommunicationtothepubliccredentialsof webcastingasaformofcontentdistribution.Referenceshavebeenmadeinthepastto‘onͲdemand webcasting’bylegalscholars, 87 whileWikipediaalsoobscuresmattersby,ontheonehand, classifyingwebcastingasa‘nonͲinteractive’,‘linear’disseminationmethodand,ontheotherhand, statingthata“webcastmayeitherbedistributedliveorondemand”.Theentryonwebcastinginthe WIPOGlossaryisneutral,inconclusivelydefiningwebcastingasthe“makingaccessibleforreception bythepublicoftransmissionsofsounds,images,orsoundsandimagesortherepresentations thereof,bywireorwirelessmeansoveracomputernetwork.Suchtransmissions,whenencrypted, 84 Online Music Services Recommendation, see ft 68. L.E. Gillies and A. Morrison, “Securing Webcast Content in the European Union: Copyright, Technical Protection and Problems of Jurisdiction on the Internet” [2002] 24(2) E.I.P.R. 74. 86 See AVMS Directive, Article 1(e) and (g). 87 L.E. Gillies and A. Morrison, “Securing Webcast Content in the European Union: Copyright, Technical Protection and Problems of Jurisdiction on the Internet” [2002] 24(2) E.I.P.R. 74; See also Wikipedia entry for “webcast”, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcasting. 85 20 aresupposedtobeconsideredas‘webcasting’wherethemeansfordecryptingareprovidedtothe publicbythewebcastingorganizationorwithitsconsent.”88 Itistheauthor’sopinionthatthenonͲ onͲdemandstatusofwebcastingasaservicecannotbeinfluencedbythetimeͲshiftingpossibilities offeredbydevices,suchaspersonalmediaplayersordigitalvideorecorders(DVRs),withthehelpof whichcontentmaybedownloadedforviewingatalatertimeoftheconsumer’schoice.Toclaimthat suchcapabilitiestransformwebcastingintoanonͲdemandservicewouldbetantamounttoclaiming thattraditionalTVbroadcastingisalsoanonͲdemandservice,becauseitmayberecordedontotape andviewedatanylatertimethroughtheuseofaVCR.Webcastingshouldalsonotbeconfusedwith onlinemusicorvideosharingplatforms,suchasYouTubeorMTVMusic.com.Nevertheless,if,asthe dustsettlesontheevolvingconceptsofnewmedia,webcastingdoesemergeasamalleableterm, capableofaccommodatingbothonͲdemandandlinearservices,thenitshouldbeonlythelatter categorythatshouldbeallowedtobeincludedwithinthescopeoftherightofcommunicationtothe publicandonlyforthatshouldarighttoequitableremunerationbeaffordedtoperformersand phonogramproducers. B.InternetRadio Internetradiois,inessence,audiowebcasting,inotherwordstheinternetequivalentof conventionalradiobroadcasting.BeingasubͲspeciesofwebcasting,ittooinvolvestheuseof streamingtechnology,sothataudiofilesarepresentedtothelistenerintheformofacontinuous ‘stream’overwhichhehaslittleornocontrol. 89 Assuch,internetradiomustalsobedeniedonͲ demandstatus.Likewebcasting,internetradioalsoconstitutesacommunicationofsoundͲ recordingstothepublic,notthemakingavailabletothepublicofsoundrecordings,anddoes generateanArticle8(2)righttoequitableremuneration. C.Simulcasting AccordingtotheEuropeanCommission’s2005WorkingDocumentStudyonaCommunityInitiative ontheCrossͲBorderCollectiveManagementofCopyright,‘simulcasting’isaportmanteaufor ‘simultaneousbroadcasting’.Thetermrefersto“programsoreventsbroadcastacrossmorethanone mediumatthesametime” 90 oracrossmorethanoneservicesonthesamemedium. 91 Narrower definitionshavealsobeenputforth:intheearlierCommissionIFPIdecisionsimulcastingwasdefined bythenotifyingpartiesas“thesimultaneoustransmissionbyradioandTVstationsviatheInternetof soundrecordingsincludedintheirbroadcastsorradioand/orTVsignals.” 92 Itshouldbenoted howeverthattherestrictionofthetermexclusivelytointernettransmissionsisprobablytoostrict anddoesnotseemtobegenerallyaccepted. 93 Inanycase,theallocationofsimulcastingtothebroadercategoriesof‘broadcasting’or ‘communicationtothepublic’willlogicallydependonthemediumusedforthesimultaneous transmission.Ifthecontentisindeed‘simultaneouslybroadcast’thenthesimulcastingshouldbe classifiedasbroadcasting.Ifanyothertechnologyisutilised,thesimulcastingwillconstitute communicationtothepublic.Inanycase,theinherenttiminglimitationsexcludecategorisationas 88 Entry on “webcasting” in M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva 2003). 89 Wikipedia, “Internet Radio”, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio. 90 European Commission’s Staff Working Document Study on a Community Initiative on the Cross-Border Collective Management of Copyright (Brussels, 7 July 2005). 91 Wikipedia, “Simulcasting”, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulcasting. 92 Commission Decision of 8 October 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/C2/38.014 – IFPI ‘Simulcasting’) OJ L 107/58. 93 See Oxford English Dictionary entry on “simulcast”. 21 anonͲdemandservice(thereͲtransmissionmustbesimultaneous,withtheconsumerofferedno control).Asaresult,withintheEU,simulcastingwillalwaysgenerateanequitableremunerationright underArticle8(2)oftheRentalRightDirective. D.NearͲonͲDemandServices ThenotionofnearͲonͲdemandserviceshasnotbeenspecificallydefinedinCommunitylaw.That beingsaid,theECJ‘Mediakabel’case 94 doesdealwiththeconceptof‘nearͲvideoͲonͲdemand’.In thatjudgement,theCourtreachedtheconclusionthatnearͲvideoͲonͲdemand 95 isnota “communicationserviceoperatingonindividualdemand.”ByanalogousapplicationtonearͲonͲ demandservicesingeneral,wereachtheconclusionthattheydonotfallwithinthecategoryof ‘makingavailable’,buttothecontraryconstituteamethodofcommunicationtothepublic. NootherclarificationisprovidedbyEUlegislationorcaselaw.However,anindicationofthenature ofnearͲonͲdemandservicescanbederivedfromtheWIPOGlossary,which,inthecontextofthe WIPOTreaties,definesanearͲonͲdemandserviceas“atransmissionofworksandobjectsofrelated rights[…]intheformofbroadcastingandcablecastingwhoseimpactisthesameas,orverycloseto, thatofanonͲdemandtransmission,withoutfullycorrespondingtotheconceptofthelatter,suchas certainsubscriptionsystems,throughwhichentiredigitalͲqualityrepertoiresofauthors,performers andproducersofphonogramsaredeliveredinasystematicway.” 96 Thiswouldindicate–asinfact doestheverytermitself–thatnearͲonͲdemandservicesarenotactualonͲdemandservicesassuch andthat,therefore,theymusteitherfallwithinthescopeofbroadcastingorofcommunicationto thepublic.Aswithsimulcasting,whichofthesetwotermswillbetheappropriateonewilldependon thetechnologyputtouse:ifanearͲonͲdemandserviceistransmittedasabroadcast,thatwillbethe categorytowhichitshouldbeassigned.Cablecastingwouldindicatecommunicationtothepublic. And,althoughtheWIPOdefinitiononlyoffersthesetwopossibilities,thereisarguablynoreasonto limitpossibletransmissionmethodssoseverely–infact,thenotesfromtheWIPODiplomatic Conferencestatethat“[nearͲonͲdemandservices]canbeestablishedbyusingcableorwire networksorbywirelessmeans.” 97 Inanycase,equitableremunerationwillalwaysbeduetothe phonogramproducerandperformer. Ontheinternationalrealm,itisworthpointingoutthatthequestionofnearͲonͲdemandservices causedconsiderabledebateintherunͲuptotheadoptionoftheWPPT.Initially,theBasicProposal includedaclauseexcluding“anybroadcastingoranycommunicationbywireorwirelessmeans whichcanonlybereceivedonthebasisofsubscriptionandagainstpaymentofafee”fromthe possibilityofreservationfromtheapplicationoftheprovisionsofArticle15.Thiswouldhavemade therighttoequitableremunerationobligatoryforallsignatoriesinthespecialcaseofnearͲonͲ demandservices.Certaindelegationspositedhoweverthatevenacompulsoryequitable remunerationrightwouldnotbesufficientandsuggestedenablingcountriestoderogatefromthis provisionthroughtheestablishmentofanexclusiverightfornearͲonͲdemandservices.These suggestionswerejustifiedpreciselybynotingtheconsiderablesimilaritiesbetweenonͲdemandand 94 Case C-89/04 Mediakabel BV v Commissariaat voor de Media (ECJ 2 June 2005). In this case, the “near-video-on-demand” service was one that permitted users to order films from a predetermined catalogue and then, after payment of a fee and through use of a personal identification code, receive an individual key by means of which viewing the selected films at the times indicated in the service’s programme guide was enabled. 96 Entry on “near-on-demand transmission” in M. Ficsor, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms (WIPO, Geneva 2003) 297. For reasons of comparison, see also US Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (1976) s. 114 (j)(8) and (11). 97 M. Ficsor, The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 WIPO Treaties, Their Interpretation and Implementation (OUP, New York 2002) 245. 95 22 nearͲonͲdemand. 98 Intheevent,thefinalconclusionofthecontroversywastheadoptionofAgreed Statement12,whichaccompaniestheArticleandstatesthatitscontent“doesnotrepresenta completeresolutionofthelevelofrightsofbroadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicthat shouldbeenjoyedbyperformersandphonogramproducersinthedigitalage.”Thediscussionatthe conferenceconfirmsthatnearͲonͲdemandserviceswillnormallyfallwithintheambitofArticle15 WPPTandthatequitableremunerationisdue,accordingtotheprovisionsoftheWPPT,fortheuse ofaphonograminthisway. E.OnͲDemandServices Ifwebcasting,simulcasting,internetradioandnearͲonͲdemandservicesallfallwithintherealmof communicationtothepublic,whichmodesofdeliveryofdigitalcontentunequivocallydogenerate anexclusivemakingavailablerightalongthelinesofArticle3(2)oftheInfoSocDirective?VideoͲonͲ demandservices,aswellasonlinevideosharingservices,suchasYouTube,willcertainlyqualify. 99 OnͲdemandradiowillalsodefinitelybeencompassed.Likewise,peerͲtoͲpeerdownloadingwebsites, likethePirateBay,andonlinedigitalmediastores,suchastheiTunesstore,willalsobecaughtby thedefinitionofonͲdemandservices. Aninterestingcaseispresentedbypodcasting.PodcastsaredefinedinarecentEuropeanworking documentas“programmes,recordedasdigitalaudiofiles,whicharedownloadableandtransferable toportabledigitaldevicessuchasMP3players.” 100 AlthoughtheendͲusermustemployspecialclient softwareapplications(‘podcatchers’)todownloadpodcastfiles,theseautomaticallyidentifyand retrievenewfilesuploadedtoawebfeedtowhichtheuserhaspreviouslysubscribed.Thesetwo elementsofsubscriptiontoepisodicallyreleasedseriesandautomateddownloadarguablybring podcastswithintheambitofnearͲonͲdemandsubscriptionservicesandthereforetherightof communicationtothepublic,yetatthesametimeitishardtoviewwhatis,inactualfact,nomore thanasophisticatedvariantofrunͲofͲtheͲmilldownloadingasnonͲonͲdemand.Thedecisivefactorin determiningwhetherpodcastingconstitutesanonͲdemandserviceoracommunicationtothepublic willbethemomentatwhichitisconsideredthattheusergainsaccesstothematerial:oncethe downloadiscomplete,theusercanindividuallychoosethetimeatwhichshewishestoopenand listento,i.e.to‘pull’,thefile.However,incontrasttoregulardownloadingservices,theprecise momentatwhichthedownloadwilltakeplacedoesnotdependontheuserandmaynothappenfor weeksormonthsaftersubscription,ifatall:subscriptiondoesnotnecessarilyresultinimmediate access,asthecontentstillhastobe‘pushed’unilaterallytothesubscribingpublicbytheinstigating podcaster.Furthermore,fullcontrolisnotavailabletotheisolateduserastowhatmaterialwill appearonheraudioplayereither:sheislimitedtowhatwillbeallocatedthenextslotinthepodcast seriesbythedistributor.ItwouldthereforeseemthatelementsofbothonͲdemandandlinear servicesareexistentinpodcasting,placingthisdisseminationmethodmidwaybetweenthetwoacts 98 M. Ficsor, The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 WIPO Treaties, Their Interpretation and Implementation (OUP, New York 2002) 245 and 639. 99 It should be noted that, as opposed to the right of equitable remuneration, for which, as noted above (Part I, Section 1), only four EU Member States (Belgium, Croatia, Germany and Spain) have extended the minimum protection provision of Article 8(2) Rental Right Directive to encompass audiovisual fixations, the exclusive making available right is granted to the holders of related rights for all types of fixations, including audiovisual fixations, already on the European level by means of Article 3(2) InfoSoc Directive. See also Els Vanheusden, “Performers’ Rights in European Legislation: Situation and Elements for Improvement” (AEPO-ARTIS, June 2007), available at: http://www.aepo-artis.org/usr/AEPOARTIS%20Studies/Study%20Performers%20Rights%20in%20Acquis_AEPO-ARTIS.pdf. 100 For a definition of podcasting, see “Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Creative Content Online in the Single Market” {COM(2007) 836 final}, Brussels, 3 January 2008, SEC(2007) 1710. 23 ofmakingavailableandcommunicationtothepublic. 101 Mattersarefurthercomplicatedbythe versatilityofpodcastingplatforms:inadditiontothepossibilityofsubscriptiontofuturepodcasts, podcastingservicesfrequentlyalsooffertheuserimmediateaccess(bymeansofeitherdownloading orstreaming)tooldpodcastepisodesinthepodcaster’sarchivesonafileͲbyͲfilebasis.Theauthor howeverwouldarguethatadistinctionshouldbedrawnbetweenthedifferentoptionsopenin paralleltoeachotheronasinglemultiͲtaskingplatform,withtheactualactofpodcastingitself(a subscriptionservice)receivingseparatelegaltreatmenttothatreservedfordownloadingand streaming,whichare(undisputed)actsofmakingavailable.Whatthelegalstatusofpodcastingis andwhetherequitableremunerationshouldbepaidbytheuserengaginginpodcastingremainsan openandpertinentquestion.Inanycase,podcastingisaprimeillustrationofthefactthat,asothers havenotedbefore,thedichotomysetupbylegislatorsbetween‘linear’and‘nonͲlinear’servicesisa falseone;elementsofboth‘push’and‘pull’technologieswillexistinmostmethodsofdistributing contentandattemptstodrawadecisivelinebetweenthetwowillultimatelyprovefutile. 102 F.Conclusion WethereforeconcludethattheCommission’sRecommendationiscompletelyaccurate:webcasting, simulcasting,internetradioandnearͲonͲdemandservicesallfallwithintheambitoftherightof communicationtothepublicandnotthemakingavailableright.Useofacommercialphonogramin anyofthesewayswillconsequentlyactivateArticle8(2)RentalRightDirectiveandtheperformer andphonogramproducer’srighttoequitableremunerationwillbebroughtintoplay. 101 B. Hugenholtz and others, “The Recasting of Copyright and Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy” (Institute for Information Law, November 2006), available at: http://www.ivir.nl/publications/other/IViR_Recast_Final_Report_2006.pdf, 57. 102 J. Ginsburg, “The (New?) Right of Making Available to the Public?” in D. Vaver and L. Bently, Intellectual Property in the New Millennium (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004) 236 and J. Reinbothe and S. von Lewinski, “The WIPO Treaties 1996: Ready to Come into Force” [2002] 24(4) European Intellectual Property Review, 110. 24 PartII:CollectiveManagementoftheRighttoEquitableRemuneration Introduction:ThreeCCͲCompatibleLicenseSchemesforCollectiveRightsManagement .................. 26 1.CollectiveManagementoftheRighttoEquitableRemunerationintheNetherlands ..................... 27 2.CollectiveManagementoftheRighttoEquitableRemunerationintheUK .................................... 29 3.TheFunctionalRealityofCollectingSocieties................................................................................... 32 25 Introduction:ThreeCCͲCompatibleLicenseSchemesforCollectiveRightsManagement Article8(2)RentalRightDirectiveexplainsthattheuserowestheperformerandphonogram producerequitableremunerationandthatthismustbesharedbetweenthetworecipients,but providesnofurtherspecifications.TheMemberStatesareaccordinglyfreetochoosebetweenanyof thethreefollowingmethodsofimplementation: (a)Thepaymentmaybemadetoperformersandproducersjointly(thisisthecaseinthe Netherlands); (b)Thepaymentmaybemadetoperformers,whothenhaveanobligationtopayashareof theremunerationtothephonogramproducers;or (c)Thepaymentmaybemadetoproducers,whothenhaveanobligationtopayashareof theremunerationtotheperformers(thisisthecaseintheUK). 103 Inpractice,thecollectionanddistributionofremunerationfeesisusuallyundertakenbycollective managementorganisationsrepresentingeitherorbothofthetwocategoriesofrightͲholders.The modeoffunctionoftheseorganisationswilldependonthesourcefromwhichtheydrawtheir mandate.InmostEuropeancountries,either: (a)Collectivemanagementoftherightiscompulsorybylaw,whichtherebyinessence institutesasystemofnonͲwaivablecompulsorylicensing(asweshallsee,thisisgenerally acceptedtobethecaseintheNetherlands,althoughthisviewcanbechallenged);or (b)Collectivemanagementisnotactuallycompulsorybylaw,butanirrefutablereality offeringrightͲholdersandusersverylittleroomformanoeuvre:royaltieswillusuallybe collectedthroughtheblunttoolofblanketlicensesfortheuseofavastrepertorymanaged bysocietiesthatfunctionasdefacto,ifnotactual,monopolies.Insuchcases,eithera waivablecompulsorylicenseschemewillbeinplaceoravoluntarylicensescheme(thisisthe caseintheUK). Thesedistinctionsaresignificant,astheyactivatedivergenttermsintheCreativeCommonslicenses whichmaypotentiallybeattachedtoaphonogram:asmentionedabove,theCreativeCommons licensingsuitedifferentiatesbetweennonͲwaivablecompulsorylicenseschemes,waivable compulsorylicenseschemesandvoluntarylicenseschemes. Belowweshallexamineintowhichofthesecategoriesthelicenseschemesforthecollectionand distributionofequitableremunerationintheNetherlandsandtheUKfall.Beforethat,however,itis alsoworthexaminingwhethertheestablishmentofawaivablecompulsorylicenseschemeora voluntarylicenseschemeisevenpossibleaccordingtotherelevantinternationalandEuropeanlegal frameworks,i.e.whetherthepossibilityofwaiveronthepartoftheowneroftherelatedrightto equitableremunerationisrecognisedontheinternationalandEuropeanlevel. (a)TheInternationalTreaties Istherighttoequitableremunerationwaivableonthepartoftheperformerandphonogram producerontheinternationallevel?NeithertheRomeConventionnortheWPPTincludeanexplicit prohibitionofwaiver.Infact,bothexpresslypermitcontractingstatestooptoutoftheapplication ontherelevantprovisionsinnationallaw,therebydecisivelyexcludingallperformersand phonogramproducersintheirterritoryfromanyclaimtoequitableremunerationwhatsoever. 104 103 J. Reinbothe and S. van Lewinski, The EC Directive on Rental and Lending Rights and on Piracy (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1993) 98. 104 Rome Convention, Article 16 and WPPT, Article 15(3). 26 (b)Theacquiscommunautaire Bycontrast,theEU’sRentalRightDirectivepermitsMemberStatesnosuchlatitude:domestic legislaturesarepositivelyobligedtointroducetherightintotheirlegislativesystems.Yetwemust concludethat,ontheEuropeanlevel,inprinciple,waiveronthepartoftherightͲholderis consideredpermissible.Thiscanbededucedecontrariothroughcomparisonwiththerightto equitableremunerationfortherentalofaphonogram,whoseunwaivablestatusisexpressly declaredintheverytitleofArticle5RentalRightDirective.Nosuchqualificationisintroducedin relationtotherightofArticle8(2)RentalRightDirective.Thatbeingsaid,theprecisewordingofthe articleisperplexing:theprovisionwouldclaimtovestperformersandphonogramproducerswitha “right”,yetstatesthatMemberStatesmust“ensurethatasingleequitableremunerationispaidby theuser”,aphrasingthatwouldseemtoindicatetheimpositionofacorrespondingandunavoidable obligationontheuser.Nevertheless,nodecisiveresultinfavourofanunwaivablerightcande deducted.Wemustthereforeconcludethat,intheoryatleastandontheEuropeanlevel,the performerandphonogramproducerarepermittedtoagreetotherelinquishmentofanyclaimtothe paymentofequitableremuneration.Ofcourse,Article8(2)RentalRightDirectiveoffersonly minimumrightsinrespectofbroadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicandMemberStatesare freetorecognisebroaderprotectionforperformersandphonogramproducers,includingthrough theexclusionofthepossibilityofwaiver. 1.CollectiveManagementoftheRighttoEquitableRemunerationintheNetherlands AccordingtoArticle7oftheDutchNeighbouringRightsAct, “Aphonogramorreproductionthereofpublishedforcommercialpurposesmaybebroadcastor otherwisecommunicatedtothepublicwithouttheconsentoftheproducerortheperformerortheir assignees,providedanequitableremunerationispaid.Theprovisionsinthefirstsentenceshallnot applytomakingsuchaphonogramavailabletothepublic”. Article15ofthesamelawprovidesthat, “TheequitableremunerationreferredtoinArticle7shallbepaidtoarepresentativelegalperson designatedbyOurMinisterofJustice,whoshallbeexclusivelyentrustedwiththecollectionand distributionofsuchremunerations.” 105 Byvirtueofthisprovision,astatutorymandateisestablishedwherebyperformingartistsand phonogramproducersgrantarighttoexerciseandmaintaintherightsandclaimstowhichtheyare entitledaccordingtoArticle7WNRinitsownname,withintheNetherlandsandtotheexclusionof allothers,totheStichtingterExploitatievanNaburigeRechten(FoundationfortheExploitationof NeighbouringRights–SENA). 106 Inotherwords,intheNetherlands,forthecollectionofequitable remuneration,astatutorylicensingschemehasbeensetinplace,withtherelevantcollecting society’smandateestablisheddirectlyinnationallaw. 105 WNR, Article 15. See SENA Exploitation Agreement for Performing Artists, in M.T.M. Koedooder et al. (eds), De nieuwe praktijkgids Artiest en Recht: juridische en fiscale informatie (Kluwer, 2009) 531. It should be noted that, by virtue of the exploitation agreement, SENA is also entrusted with collecting equitable remuneration due according to rights and claims that flow from Article 12 Rome Convention and other corresponding provisions of international agreements to which the Netherlands have acceded. 106 27 ThelicensesissuedbySENAtouserscaneitherbegrantedonanindividualbasisorthrough collectivelicensingagreementsconcludedwithsectorͲrelatedorganisations.Theyapplyonanannual basisandarecalculatedaccordingtoanumberofdifferentparameters,suchasthenumberofpupils inaballetclassorthetotaldurationoflisteningonaninternetradiostation.Inprinciple,licensees areofferedblanketlicensesunderthetermsofwhichtheycanuseanyofthesoundrecordings includedinSENA’srepertoire(repertoryͲbasedlicenses).ItshouldbenotedthatSENAalsoissues licensesforuseofphonogramsinnewmedia.Thus,suchmodesofdisseminationastheuseof mechanicalbackgroundmusiconwebsites,simulcastingorinternetradioareincludedwithinSENA’s fieldofcompetence.SENAdoesnotcollectremunerationforpodcasting(althoughitisentrusted withprocessingpodcastinglicensingonbehalfofNVPI,theDutchassociationforproducersand importersofimageandsoundcarriers). 107 Aftercollection,SENAredistributesthemoniescollectedtoitsmembersonthebasisofplaylists providedbyradioandtelevisionstationsaccordingtolegallyapprovedregulations.SENA’smembers arebothphonogramproducersandperformers,whilemembershipisnecessaryforpaymentby SENAtotheperformerorphonogramproducertotakeplace.Nevertheless,noassignmentofrights isnecessarysoastobecomeamemberofSENA. IstherighttoequitableremunerationwaivableundertheDutchsystem?Thiswillbedependenton whetheritispossiblefortheperformerandphonogramproducertolicensetheuseoftheir phonogramforcommunicationtothepublicorbroadcastingtoathirdpartyotherwisethanthrough SENAandaccordingtotermsdifferentthatthoseexistinginthelicensesSENAgrantstousers,e.g. throughtheuseofaCreativeCommonslicense.ItcanbearguedthattheDutchNeighbouringRights Actdoesleavethispossibilityopen.Ofcourse,asopposedtoArticles2(6),5(3)and6(6)WNR,Article 7WNR,whichintroducestheright,doesnotexplicitlyprovideforthepossibilityofwaiver. Nevertheless,acloserexaminationofitspreciselanguagedoesseemtoindicatetowardswaivability; Article7statesthatuseofacommercialphonograminabroadcastoracommunicationtothepublic ispossible“withouttheconsentoftheproducerortheperformerortheirassignees,providedan equitableremunerationispaid.”ThisphrasingimpliesatwoͲforkedsystemforlegitimate broadcastingorcommunicationtothepublic,wherebyeitherremunerationispaidorpermissionis grantedbytheownersoftherelatedrights.Aslongaseitheroneoftheseconditionsismet,theact islawful. 108 Ifthisinterpretationweretobeaccepted,thentheNetherlandswouldemergeasa countryhavinginstitutedawaivablestatutorylicensingscheme. However,theaboveanalysisisnotthegenerallyacceptedinterpretationintheNetherlands.Instead, whatisinoperationisanonͲwaivablestatutorylicensingsystem.InSENA’soperationalpracticeno distinctionismadebetweenphonogramsassignedtoitsexerciseandmaintenancebyitsmembers andthematerialofnonͲmembers;instead,SENAwillcollectequitableremunerationfortheuseof phonogramsforcommunicationtothepublicorbroadcastingintheNetherlandswithoutexamining whethertheyareincludedinitsrepertory,thatistosay,withoutconsideringwhethertherightͲ holderisaregisteredmemberofSENAornot.Infact,wheneverSENAfindsitselfwithadditional reservesofundistributedrevenue,itattemptstogetintocontactwithunregisteredartiststoexplain thatremunerationwillbedistributedtothemuponregistration.SuchremunerationiskeptinSENA’s ‘blackbox’ofunclaimedroyaltiesontherightͲholder’sbehalfforfiveyears.Inaddition,asaresultof crossͲlicensingagreementswithitsforeigncounterparts,SENAwillalsocollectequitable remunerationforallsoundrecordingsinoverseasrepertories.Iftheunregisteredartistisaforeign 107 See “New Media” on the SENA website, available at: http://www.sena.nl/Gebruikersmuziek/Marketinglic/Nieuwe-Media.aspx. 108 D.J.D. Visser, Naburige Rechten : van Uitvoerende Kunstenaars, Fonogrammenproducenten, Filmproducenten en Omroeporganisaties (W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Deventer 1999) 77; D.J.G. Visser, “Waarheen, waarvoor met Mieke Zelkamp en de SENA?” Informatierecht/ AMI 1998, p.80. 28 one,theInternationalPerformers’Databaseischeckedandinquiriesmadetothesisterorganisation oftheperformer’snationality.SENAconsequentlycontrolsrightsoveralmosttheentiretyofthe worldwiderepertoire.Thisarrangementmeansthat,eveniftheabovetwoͲprongedanalysiswereto beaccepted,aslongastherightͲownerisamemberofSENA,suchanoccasionalderogationfrom thecollectionofremunerationwouldbeimpossibletoimplement:giventhatSENAhasanexclusive mandatetocollectequitableremunerationintheNetherlandsandcontrolsavastinternational repertoire,implementingintothetariffchargedtouserssuchrareexceptionstotherule,whereby oneormoreusershavebeengrantedpermissiontouseoneormorephonogramsfromtheopusofa specificrightͲholder,wouldproveunworkable(seealsobelow,PartII,Section2ontheBritish situation). AnalternativerouteoutofthisimpassethatmightallowforSENAͲindependentlicensingoftheuse ofphonogramsincommunicationstothepublicorbroadcastsintheNetherlandsthatresultinthe releaseoftheuserfromtheobligationtopayequitableremunerationmightbefoundinthe followingtheory.AccordingtoArticle7(4)WNR,intheeventof“disagreementastotheamountof theequitableremuneration,theDistrictCourtofTheHagueshallhavesolecompetenceatfirst instancetodetermine,onapplicationofeitheroftheparties,theamountoftheremuneration.”The ECJhasruled(‘SENA’ 109 )thatArticle8(2)oftheRentalRightDirectivedoesnotprecludeamodelfor thecalculationofanequitableremunerationthattakesvariableandfixedfactorsintoaccount,as longasaproperbalancebetweentheinterestsofboththeperformingartistsandproducersandthe interestsofthirdpartiesinbeingabletobroadcastthephonogramontermsthatarereasonableis achieved.Theheightoftheequitableremunerationiscalculatedonthebasisofanumberoffactors including“thenumberofhoursofphonogramsbroadcast,theviewingandlisteningdensities achievedbytheradioandtelevisionbroadcastersrepresentedbythebroadcastingorganisation,the tariffsfixedbyagreementintheareaofperformancerightsandbroadcastingrightsinrespectof musicalworksprotectedbycopyright,thetariffsappliedbypublicbroadcastersinMemberStates borderingontheNetherlandsand,finally,theamountspaidbycommercialstations.”Itistherefore conceivablethat,ifSENAweretoagreetosuchtermsor,intheabsenceofsuchacontractual agreement,iftheDistrictCourtofTheHaguedecidedtoimposeacalculationmodelthattakes accountof,inadditiontotheabove,thenumberofhourscommunicatedtothepublicorbroadcast ofe.g.CreativeCommonslicensedphonograms,anexploitationmethodthatcombinedthe collectionofequitableremunerationandtheuseofCreativeCommonslicensescouldbe implementedintheNetherlands.Thus,ifacertainpercentageofthetotalnumberoftracks broadcastbywirelessmeansorcommunicatedthepublicbyacertainuserarephonogramsfor whichtherightͲownerhassignalled,throughtheuseofaCClicenseorothermeans,thatherequires noequitableremuneration,theheightoftheroyaltieschargedfortheblanketlicensewouldbe accordinglylowered.Ifthemusicbroadcastbywirelessmeansorcommunicatedtothepublic exclusivelyconsistedofsuchphonograms,thentheequitableheightofthetotalremunerationdue woulddroptozero. 2.CollectiveManagementoftheRighttoEquitableRemunerationintheUK AnalternativesystemisinoperationintheUK.RemunerationrightsintheUKwereonlyformally introducedintheprocessofimplementingtheRentalRightDirective:accordingtos.182DCDPA, whichimplementedArticle8(2)oftheRentalRightDirectiveintoBritishlaw,performersarenow “entitledtoequitableremunerationfromtheownerofthecopyrightinthesoundrecording”where “acommerciallypublishedsoundrecordingofthewholeoranysubstantialpartofaqualifying performance(a)isplayedinpublic,or(b)iscommunicatedtothepublicotherwisethanbyitsbeing madeavailabletothepublic.”Previously,performershadnolegalentitlementtoincomefromthe 109 Case C-245/00 Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten (SENA) v Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (ECJ 6 February 2003). 29 communicationtothepublicorbroadcastingoftheirperformances,althoughrecordingcompanies haddevelopedapracticeofexgratiapaymentstocertainmusicians.Underthenewregime, performersclaimtheirrevenuefromtheownerofthecopyrightinasoundrecording,i.e.therecord companythatpublishedthephonogram. 110 Inpracticethisresponsibilityisassumedby PhonographicPerformanceLimited(PPL),thecollectingsocietythatadministerstheperformingand broadcastingrightsoftheownersofcopyrightinsoundrecordings.Upuntilrecently,thecollection ofremunerationfromPPLwasdonebytheperformerorganisationsPAMRA(thePerformingArtists’ MediaRightAssociation)andAURA(theAssociationofUnitedRecordingArtists).Thefirstofthese wasmainlyusedbysessionmusicians,whilethesecondbyfeatureartistsandproducers,inaddition tosessionmusicians.Afurtherdevelopmentensuedin2006,whenPAMRAandAURAmergedwith PPL.Underthisnewstructure,PPLdirectlydistributesequitableremunerationtoitsperformer members. Thishistoryhasleftitsmarkonthecurrentsystemofcollectiveadministrationoftherightto equitableremuneration.ItischaracteristicoftheBritishsystemthatnorighttoequitable remunerationisprovidedinlawtophonogramproducers.Instead,Section1oftheCDPArecognises soundrecordingsasworksinwhichcopyrightsubsistsandSection9declarestheproducertobethe authorofasoundrecording.Thus,producersofsoundrecordingsarevestedwith,insteadofthe mererighttoequitableremunerationgrantedbytherelatedrightssystemsinforceincontinental Europeancivillawsystems,allexclusiverightsrecognisedtotheauthorsofcopyrightworks.These includetheexclusiverighttotheplayingofaworkinpublic(Section19CDPA)andtheexclusiveright ofcommunicationtothepublic(Section20CDPA),whichencompassesthemakingavailableand broadcastingrights. PPLholdsnoexclusivemandateinlaw–tothecontrary,allPPLmembersassigntheirrightstothe societyuponregistrationandappointPPLastheiragenttoexercisethem,meaningthatPPL’s mandatetocontrolandlicensesoundrecordingsextendsonlytothesoundrecordingsofits members.Inotherwords,whatisinplaceintheUKisavoluntarylicensingscheme.Onthebasisof thisindividualisedauthorisation,PPLgrantslicensestousersandsubsequentlycollectslicensefees forthebroadcastingandplayinginpublicofthesoundrecordingsitcontrols.PPLthenredistributes thesemoniestotheownersofthesoundrecordings(usuallytherecordcompany)and(onbehalfof theowners)totheperformingartists.Distributionisorganisedonthebasisofcomputerisedreturns frommajorlicensees. 111 AsintheNetherlands,membershipoftheperformerisnecessaryforhimto participate,inexerciseofhisrighttoequitableremuneration,inthedistributionoftherevenue collected,yetcontrarytotheDutchsystem,membershipoftherecordcompanythatcontrolsthe rightsintheperformer’ssoundrecordingsisnecessary,notmerelyforthatcompanytopartakeof theroyalties,butmoreoverforcollectionofequitableremunerationfortheplayinginpublicor broadcastingofitssoundrecordingstotakeplaceatall.ThisruleisintendedtoactuallygovernPPL’s operationalpractice;thesociety’swebsiteinfactunambiguouslystatesthat: “PPLonlycontrolsandlicensessoundrecordingsinitsrepertoire.Asoundrecordingwill beinPPL’srepertoireif: •Thesoundrecordingqualifiesforcopyrightprotection,and •TherecordcompanythatcontrolstherightsinthatsoundrecordingisamemberofPPL […]orisamemberofarecordcompanysocietyinanotherterritory,withwhomPPLhas arepertoireagreement.”112 110 L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (OUP, Oxford 2004) 144; CDPA 1988, ss. 20, 182CA, 182D, 295. 111 P. Torremans in D. Gervais, Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2006) 237. 112 PPL website, available at: http://www.ppluk.com/en/Performers/UK-revenue-payments/. 30 Nevertheless,theBritishsystemisnotasdissimilartotheDutchnonͲwaivablelicensingsystemas mightinitiallyappear:althoughnotexclusivelyentrustedwiththecollectionanddistributionof equitableremuneration,PPLiscurrentlytheonlycollectingsocietyofitskindwithintheUKandhas growntorepresentover3,000recordcompaniesand38,000performers.Inaddition,asaresultof crossͲlicensingagreementswithitsforeigncounterparts,PPLalsocollectsequitableremunerationfor soundrecordingsinoverseasrepertories.LikeSENA,therefore,itadministersrightsovermoreor lesstheentiretyoftheworldwiderepertoire. ThelicensesissuedbyPPLtouserscaneitherbegrantedonanindividualbasisorthroughcollective licensingagreementsconcludedwithsectorͲrelatedorganisations.Licensesareavailableonan annualbasisorforaoneͲoffevent,withtariffsvaryingaccordingtoaverageattendanceandhours peroccasion.PPLalsovariesitsstandardlicensefeesaccordingtothetypeofbroadcastingor communicatingtothepubliceffected,branchingfromtraditionalcommercialradiotouseofasound recordingasanaccompanimenttoafashionshoworapopquiz.Inprinciple,licenseesareoffered blanket(repertoryͲbased)licensesunderthetermsofwhichtheycanuseanyofthesound recordingsincludedinPPL’srepertoire. 113 LicensesareofferedbyPPLfornewaswellastraditionalmedia.TheseincludesuchservicesasnonͲ interactiveinternetradioorcustomisedradio. 114 PPLdoesnotcurrentlycollectremunerationfor podcasting.Inanycase,animportantdissimilarityinapproachonthepartofPPLtowardsnew media,asopposedtotraditionalmedia,shouldbenoted:inthecaseofnewmediatheassignmentof rightstoPPLundertakenbyamemberuponjoiningthesocietyisnonͲexclusive.Thisisnotthecase fortraditionalmedia.ThismeansthataPPLmembermaylicensetherighttoplayinpublicand broadcastexclusivelyvianewmedia(e.g.viainternetradio)toathirdpartydirectlyandnotthrough PPL.Thisflexibilityisnotavailableinthecaseofsimulcasting(theassignmentofrightstoPPLfor simulcastingasoundrecordingisexclusive). IstherighttoequitableremunerationwaivableonthepartoftherightͲholderundertheBritish system?Accordingtos.182D(7)oftheCDPA,“[a]nagreementisofnoeffectinsofarasitpurports toexcludeorrestricttherighttoequitableremunerationunderthissection.” 115 Yet,giventhats. 182DCDPAregulatesthepaymentofequitableremunerationbyphonogramproducersto performers,wemustconcludethatonlyanagreementbetweentwosuchpartiesisforeclosed(i.e. PPLcannotexcludeperformingartiststhatarePPLmembersfromanequitableshareoflicensing feesgathered).Thepossibilityofwaiveroftherighttoequitableremunerationonthepartofthe performerandphonogramproducertothebenefitoftheuserisnotaffected,althoughthiswillonly bepossibleforownersofrelatedrightswhoarenotPPLmembersandwhohavenotthereforegiven anexclusivemandatetothesociety.Asmentionedabove,itisnotPPL’spolicytocollect remunerationforsoundrecordingsofnonͲmembers,inlinewiththeUK’svoluntarylicensingsystem. Thus,rightͲholderswhohavenotjoinedPPLretaincontroloverthedecisionofwhetherornotthey willdemandroyaltiesoftheuserforthetransmissionoftheirsoundrecordings. 113 P. Torremans in D. Gervais, Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2006) 237. 114 Customised radio is defined by PPL as “online radio services that allow the user to skip sound recordings streamed in the service, pause the stream, and rate sound recordings in order to influence the content that they receive. Users are not allowed to influence the playlist to the extent that they control which track they will be streamed at any given time and the license does not allow the user to fast forward, rewind, repeat or skip back. All services must be streamed and non-downloadable.” See PPL website, available at: http://www.ppluk.com/en/Music-Users/Online-and-mobile-radio/Customised-Radio/. 115 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (ST 1988 c. 48) (hereafter: CDPA 1988) permits performers to assign their right to equitable remuneration in accordance with s.182D(2). 31 Finally,itshouldbenotedthat,accordingtosection182D(4)CDPA,intheeventofdisagreementas totheamountpayablebywayofequitableremuneration,thepersonbyortowhomitispayable mayapplytotheCopyrightTribunaltodeterminetheheightofthefee. 116 Again,thisprovision,given thattheequitableremunerationis,accordingtoBritishlaw,paidbythecopyrightͲownertothe performer,doesnotinfluencetheheighttothefeepaidbytheuser.Instead,s.118and119CDPA entrusttheCopyrightTribunalwithreviewingthetermsoflicensingschemesoflicensingbodiesand oneͲofflicensesrespectively,afterreferenceonthepartofeitherindividualsclaimingtorequire licensesorarepresentativeorganisationofsuchindividuals.TheTribunalisgrantedthepowerto confirmorvarylicensingschemes,eithergenerallyorsofarascasesofthedescriptiontowhichthe referencerelatesareconcerned,aswellasindividuallicenses,accordingtothecriterionof “reasonableness.” 117 SimilartotheDutchsituation,therefore,adecisionofajudicialauthoritycould, intheUKaswell,initiateareͲexaminationofthecurrentlicensingscheme,inthiscasesoastotake accountofthepercentageoftracksplayedinpublicorbroadcastbyacertainuserthatarenotPPLͲ managedandforwhichthereforethecollectionofroyaltiesbyPPLisarguablynotreasonable(PartII, Section1).PPLitselfcouldofcoursealsospontaneouslyorafternegotiationswithusersdecideto adjustitslicensefeestotakeaccountofsuchsituations.DuetothefactthatPPLtakeanexclusive assignmentofrightsbymembersupontheirregistration,anarrangementsuchastheabovewould notresultinasituationwhereitispossibletoactuallycombinecollectivemanagementofrelated rightswithindependentlicensingmethods,e.g.throughCreativeCommons,aswouldbepossiblein theDutchhypothesis.IntheUK,theadjustmentoftheroyaltiesowedwouldsimplytakeaccountof thenumberoftracksplayedorbroadcastwhoseproducersarenotPPLmembersandwhotherefore haveretainedtherighttooptforalternativelicensingmethods,includingviaCreativeCommons. SuchaschemewouldthusactuallymoreaccuratelyreflectPPL’sstatedpolicyofcollectingroyalties onlyforsoundrecordingsincludedinitsrepertoire. 3.TheFunctionalRealityofCollectingSocieties Aboveweanalysedthelegalprovisionsgoverningtheoperationofcollectingsocietiesentrustedwith thecollectionofequitableremunerationforthecommunicationtothepublicandbroadcastingof phonogramsintheNetherlandsandtheUK.InboththeDutchandtheBritishsituations,however, theoreticalpossibilityisworldsapartfrompracticalapplication.Asmentionedabove,whetherwe considerDutchlawtoestablishawaivableoranonͲwaivablestatutorylicensingsystem,thefact remainsthatSENA’soperationalpracticedoesnotdifferentiatebetweenthesoundrecordingsof membersandnonͲmembersandthefoundationwillcollectfeesfromusersregardless.PPLdoes makeadistinction,yetitsvastrepertoireandpracticeofofferingblanketlicensesnegateany practicaleffectthispolicymighthave.Inbothcountries,theexistenceofcrossͲlicensingagreements withforeignsisterorganisationexacerbatesthissituationfurther,byextendingthecollecting societiescontroltoessentiallyallphonogramsinexistence.Ifauserwantstobroadcastor communicatesoundrecordingstothepublic,butwishestoavoidpayingmoniestoPPL,shewillbe severelylimitedinherchoiceofmusic.Occasionallyincludingacoupleofsoundrecordingstheuseof whichhasbeenindividuallynegotiatedwiththerightͲholdertoherusualplaylistwillnotaffectthe heightofthetarifffortheblanketlicensethatmustanywaybepaidtoSENAorPPL.Theonlywayto achievesuchaneffectwouldnecessitateeitheracourtdecisionbytheDistrictCourtofTheHague andtheCopyrightTribunalrespectivelyoraunilateraldecisionofthecollectingsociety,possibly afternegotiationswithusers.Itshouldbenotedthattheorganisations’strongbargainingpositions areunlikelytomotivatetheminthisdirection.Alternatively,usersmaycircumventtheobligationto payequitableremunerationthrough,dependingonthelicensesysteminplace,eithertheexclusive useofsoundrecordingsofunaffiliatedcreatorsorthecarefulavoidanceofusesthattriggerthe 116 CDPA, s. 182D(4). CDPA, ss. 118-120. See also L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (OUP, Oxford 2004) 286287. 117 32 applicationoftherighttoequitableremuneration.Inthepast,thiswouldhavebeenexceedingly cumbersometoorganise,yetnowadays,withtheadventofmoderndigitaltechnologiesandthe introductionofopencontentlicenses,ithasbecomenotonlyafeasible,butalsoanattractive alternative. 33 PartIII:AttachingCreativeCommonsLicensestoSoundRecordings Introduction:TheCreativeCommonsLicensingSuite .......................................................................... 35 1.CreativeCommonsandNonͲWaivableCompulsoryLicenseSchemes ............................................. 35 2.CreativeCommons,WaivableCompulsoryLicenseSchemesandVoluntaryLicenseSchemes ....... 36 3.InPracticalTerms:Last.fmandSimuze.nl......................................................................................... 38 4.FlexibleCollectiveManagementandtheRighttoEquitableRemuneration .................................... 40 34 Introduction:TheCreativeCommonsLicensingSuite AsalreadyexplainedbrieflyaboveintheIntroduction,CreativeCommonsisanonͲprofitorganisation whichhasdevelopedasetofopencontentlicenses.Theseareintendedtoprovidecreatorswitha simpletooltohelpthemindicatewhichparticularrightstheywishtheirworkstocarryandwhich theywishtorelinquish.Theobjectiveistoenablethefreeuseofworks,withinthecustomisedlimits setbythelicensor,onthepartofusers.Thesecustomisedlimitsmayincludeanyofthefollowing options: - Attribution(BY):Licenseesmaycopy,distributeandpubliclyperformthecopyrightedwork (evencommerciallyandincludingthroughderivativeworksbaseduponit),butonlyifthey credittheauthorinthemannerrequestedinthelicense.Sincetheimplementationof version2.0oftheCClicenses,theAttributionclauseisamandatoryfeatureofallCClicenses. - NonͲCommercial(NC):Licenseesmaycopy,distributeandpubliclyperformthecopyrighted work–andderivativeworksbaseduponit–butfornonͲcommercialpurposesonly. - NoDerivativeWorks(ND):Licenseesmaycopy,distributeandpubliclyperformonlyexact copiesofthecopyrightedwork,notderivativeworksbaseduponit. - ShareAlike(SA):Ifalicenseedoescreateaderivativework,hemaydistributeorpublicly performtheworkonlyunderthetermsofthesameCClicenseastheoneappliedtothe originalworkoranothercompatiblelicense. 118 MixingandmatchingtheserequirementsleadstothesixbasicCreativeCommonslicenses: Attribution(BY),AttributionShareAlike(BYͲSA),AttributionNoDerivatives(BYͲND),Attribution NonͲCommercial(BYͲNC),AttributionNonͲCommercialShareAlike(BYͲNCͲSA)andAttributionNonͲ CommercialNoDerivatives(BYͲNCͲND). CanaperformerandphonogramproducerattachaCreativeCommonslicensetotheirsound recording?Iftheywereonlyvestedwithexclusiverights,noproblemwouldoccur.Difficultiesarise howeverinviewoftherighttoequitableremuneration,duetothelicensingsystemssetinplaceby nationallegislatorstoensuremoreeffectivemanagement.Inordertosecurethevalidityofthe CreativeCommonslicensingsuitewithinsuchlicensingsystems,eachCreativeCommonslicense includesaprovisioninitsLegalCode 119 clarifyingtherulesgoverningthecompatibilityofthelicense withnonͲwaivablecompulsorystatutorylicenseschemes,waivablecompulsorystatutorylicense schemesandvoluntarylicenseschemes.Giventheframeworksetupbytheselicenseterms,under whichcircumstanceswillattachingaCreativeCommonslicenseabsolvetheuserfromtheobligation topayremunerationfeestotherightͲholderandwhenwillthelicensorandlicenseebeboundbythe provisionsofthelegalsystemwithinwhichtheyoperate?Isthereanybehaviourtheusercanadopt soastoavoidthepaymentofequitableremunerationtoacollectingsociety? 1.CreativeCommonsandNonͲWaivableCompulsoryLicenseSchemes AccordingtotheLegalCodesofthesixCreativeCommonslicenses, “Inthosejurisdictionsinwhichtherighttocollectroyaltiesthroughanystatutoryorcompulsory licensingschemecannotbewaived,theLicensorreservestheexclusiverighttocollectsuch royaltiesforanyexercisebyYouoftherightsgrantedunderthisLicense;” Inotherwords,whenanonͲwaivablestatutorylicensingschemeisinplace(asisgenerallyaccepted tobethecaseintheNetherlands,seeabovePartII,Section1),theapplicationofthelicensewillbe 118 119 Creative Commons, “License Your Work”, available at: http://creativecommons.org/about/license/. For a brief explanation of what the Legal Code constitutes, see above ft. 1. 35 thoroughly valid, but the user will be obliged to pay an equitable remuneration fee. This arrangementissensible;otherwise,undertheprovisionsofnationallaw,theconsumerwouldstillbe obligedtopaydespitetheattachmentofthelicense,theonlydifferencebeingthat,ifnotclaimedby the owner herself, the remuneration would simply accrue to the collecting society or to other members of the society who have not chosen to license their phonograms under Creative Commons. 120 Wethereforeconcludethat,intheNetherlands,inthecurrentsituation,evenifauser exclusively makes use for a communication to the public or broadcasting by wireless means of phonogramsreleasedtothepublicbytheperformersandphonogramproducersthatcreatedthem under the terms of a Creative Commons license, that user will still be under an obligation to pay remuneration to SENA, whether or not the performers and phonogram producers are SENA members. Isthereawayfortheusertocircumventthepaymentofequitableremunerationtothe collecting society? The only possibility would be through avoidance of uses that fall within the field of applicationoftherighttoequitableremuneration.Thefieldofapplicationoftherighttoequitable remunerationwasdiscussedextensivelyinPartIIofthispaper.Applyingthatanalysistothespecific situation of a phonogram released under a Creative Commons license within the context of the Dutch nonͲwaivable statutory licensing system, we can deduce that no obligation to pay equitable remunerationwillariseifeitherofthefollowingapply: (a) The phonogram to which the Creative Commons license has been attached is not a phonogrampublishedforcommercialpurposes.IntheNetherlands,however,aphonogram willbeconsideredtobepublishedforcommercialpurposeswhenithasbeenmadeavailable in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them (see Article 7(2) WNR). Given that the vast majority of phonogramsreleasedunderthetermsofaCreativeCommonslicensewillbereleasedonline (as opposed to through the publication of physical copies), avoiding using commercially publishedphonogramswillthereforebedifficultforCClicenceestoachieve. (b) Alternatively,theuserofaphonogramthathasbeenreleasedunderthetermsofaCreative Commons license, but is considered to be commercially published, can opt for exclusively usingthephonograminservicesthatdonotfallwithinthecategoriesofcommunicationto thepublicorbroadcasting.Inotherwords,theuserwillhavetomakesurehiswebsiteonly ever makes such phonograms available to the public in such a way that members of the publicmayaccessthemfromaplaceandatatimeoftheirownchoosing,throughthemeans of e.g. onͲdemand radio. The user can also opt for uses that do fall within the field of applicationoftherighttoequitableremunerationorforwhichitisunclearwhethertheydo ornot,butforwhichSENA(currently)collectsnoremuneration,suchaspodcasting. If national legislation provides rightͲholders with stricter protection, the user will have to avoid violatingthetermssetinthecorrespondingdomesticprovisions. 2.CreativeCommons,WaivableCompulsoryLicenseSchemesandVoluntaryLicenseSchemes AccordingtotheLegalCodesofthesixCreativeCommonslicenses 121 , 120 M. van Eechoud and B. van der Wal, “Creative commons licensing for public sector information – Opportunities and pitfalls” (January 2008), available at: http://www.ivir.nl/publications/eechoud/CC_PublicSectorInformation_report_v3.pdf. 121 See ft.3 above on the diverging language of the terms in the CC licenses related to license schemes depending on the type of license. 36 “Inthosejurisdictionsinwhichtherighttocollectroyaltiesthroughanystatutoryorcompulsory licensingschemecanbewaived,theLicensorwaivestheexclusiverighttocollectsuchroyalties foranyexercisebyYouoftherightsgrantedunderthisLicense;” and “TheLicensorwaivestherighttocollectroyalties,whetherindividuallyor,intheeventthatthe Licensorisamemberofacollectingsocietythatadministersvoluntarylicensingschemes,viathat society,fromanyexercisebyYouoftherightsgrantedunderthisLicense;” In other words, when a voluntary statutory licensing scheme (as is the case in the UK) or a nonͲ waivable statutory licensing scheme (as would be the case in the Netherlands, if the alternative interpretationofArticle7WNRsuggestedinthispaperwereaccepted,seeabovePartII,Section1)is inplace,theCreativeCommonslicensesrequirethatthelicensorwaivetherighttocollectroyalties for any exercise of rights on the part of the licensee, including therein the right to equitable remunerationforthebroadcastingorcommunicationofthephonogramtothepublic. In this context, whether or not the rightͲowner is already a member of a collecting society proves significant: if so, depending of course on the particular terms of the contract between the rightͲ ownerandthesociety,itislikelythattherightͲowner’sentirerepertoirewillbecollectivelymanaged by the society with no possibility of derogation through the application of a Creative Commons license. Thelicensorwillprobablyhaveassignedtheright toequitableremunerationforuseofhis phonogramforbroadcastingorcommunicationtothepublictothecollectingsocietyandgrantedit anexclusivemandatetolicensesuchuse,therebystrippinghimselfoftherighttolicensetherights for such uses via a Creative Commons license. This is indeed the case with the terms of contracts signed by members of British PPL: the phonogram producers (authors of the sound recording according to British law) assign their exclusive rights over to PPL upon registration, including the rights of communication to the public and the right to play the phonogram in public. PPL is then under a nonͲwaivable obligation flowing from s.182D(4) CDPA to pay the performer equitable remuneration. Accordingly, attaching a CC license to a sound recording managed by PPL is not possibleunderUKlegislation. As noted above, the mandate provided by PPL members to the PPL specifically for new media is a nonͲexclusive one. This means that a performer and phonogram producer can provide consent for useoftheirsoundrecordingforcommunicationtothepublicvianewmediatoauserwithoutthat userbeingobligedtopayroyaltiestoPPL.Nevertheless,suchconsentmaynotbeprovidedviathe mechanism of Creative Commons licenses. This is in fact due to the terms of the CCͲlicenses themselves:nodistinctionismadewithinthelicensesbetweentraditionalandnewmedia.TherightͲ holder who attaches a Creative Commons license to her sound recording cannot specify that permissionsgiventotheuserapplyonlyinthecaseofnewmedia. IftherightͲownerisnotamemberofacompetentcollectingsocietyestablishedwithinavoluntary licensescheme(e.g.isanindependentproducerintheUK)orawaivablecompulsorylicensescheme orifheisamemberofsuchasociety,buthasnotassignedhisrightstothecollectingsociety(e.g. withinthehypotheticalconstructofaDutchwaivablecompulsorylicensescheme,iseitheran independentproduceroramemberofSENA,forwhichnoassignmentofrightsisnecessary),the attachmentofaCreativeCommonslicensetothephonogramwillbethoroughlyvalid.Moreover, suchattachmentwillbringthewaiverclausespresentedaboveintoplay,thusreleasingtheuser fromtheobligationtopayequitableremuneration–thelicensorwouldalready,throughtherelease ofthesoundrecordingunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonslicense,havewaivedtherightto collectequitableremuneration. 37 Nevertheless, in practice such a strategy is likely to prove unworkable. As analysed above, in their dealingswithusers,collectingsocietieswillusuallyissueblanketlicensesthatauthoriseunrestricted access to the repertoire they administer. 122 This arrangement makes singling out a particular track fromamember’srepertoireimpossible,meaningthattheattachmentofaCreativeCommonslicense bythatmembertothatparticulartrackwillnotbereflectedinthetariffchargedtousers.IftherightͲ holder is not a member of a collecting society, the following scenario will come into play: the collecting society is likely to operate in a de facto monopolistic manner within national borders, administering,throughcrossͲlicensingagreementswithotherforeignsocieties,rightsovermoreor less the entirety of the worldwide repertoire. As a result, the release of a specific track under the termsofaCreativeCommonslicensewillhavenonoticeableeffectontheexpendituresofagiven user:shewillstillbeobligedtoinvestinablanketlicensewiththeresponsiblecollectingsociety,so as to legally broadcast or communicate to the public tracks that are not CCͲlicensed and in that society’s repertoire, i.e. the vast majority of tracks in existence, while the lack of a single track or artistwillnotinfluencetheheightofthetariffcharged.Theonlytangibleresultofthelicensingwill betheexclusionoftherightͲownerfromthedistributionofmoniescollected.IftherightͲholderisa member of the competent collecting society, the exact same problem arises, the only difference beingthattherightͲholderisnolongerexcludinghimselffromparticipatingintheredistributionof equitableremunerationcollectedonthepartthesocietytoitsmembers. Asingleviableescaperoutefromthissystemwouldbethroughthecarefulassimilationonthepart of the user of playlists containing material exclusively licensed under Creative Commons, thereby cuttingoffalltieswithcollectivemanagementsocieties.Theusercouldalsoaddanadditionallayer ofprotectionbychoosingtoavoidusesthatconstitutecommunicationtothepublicorbroadcasting or limiting all communication to the public and broadcasting to phonograms that have not been commercially published, as would be the case in a nonͲwaivable compulsory license scheme (see abovePartIII,Section1). Finally,itisworthpointingoutthattheaboveconclusionsholdtrueforallsixlicensesintheCreative Commons licensing suite, irrespective of the specific conditions chosen by the rightͲholder. As explainedabove,thelicensesintroducedivergingtermsdependingonwhichfreedomsthelicensor wishes to grant to the user and what limitations he wishes to place on these freedoms. This is because the relevant international, national and European provisions do not make any distinction between whether a use is made for commercial purposes or not, whether the user creates a derivativeworkbasedonthelicensedoneorwhethertheuserattachesasimilarCreativeCommons licensetosuchawork.Equitableremunerationisdueregardless. 3.InPracticalTerms:Last.fmandSimuze.nl TobetterelucidatetheconsequencesoftheapplicationofaCreativeCommonslicensebytherightͲ holderinthevariouslicensesystemsanalysedaboveandthebehaviourtheusercanadopttolimit theobligationofpayingequitableremunerationforthecommunicationtothepublicorbroadcastof phonogramstowhichaCreativeCommonslicensehasbeenapplied,thefollowingtwoexamplesof onlinemusicservicesareuseful: (a)Last.fmisaUKͲbasedinternetradioandmusiccommunitywebsiteonwhichuserscan listentomusicintwodistinctmanners:eithertheycantuneintoaradiostationoftheir selectionorlistentopreviews.Onthebasisofthefirstmethod,theusercanselectamonga varietyofdifferentchannels:onebasedonherownoranotheruser’spersonalLibrary 122 A. Katz, “The Potential Demise of Another Natural Monopoly: Rethinking the Collective Administration of Performing Rights” (2005) 1 J. Competition L. & Econ. 541. 38 containingpreviouslyplayedtracksoraddedartists;oneconsistingofRecommendations generatedautomaticallybyLast.fm;channelsplayingmusicofaspecificgenreorofsimilar artists;etc. Inotherwords,evensubscribinguserscannotactuallychoosewhichpiecethey willhearandthetimeatwhichtheywillhearit.Whatallusersareoffered,isthefacultyof selectingthegeneralgenretheywishtohearthroughavarietyofmechanisms,whileevery tracktheyplayandtheirreactiontoit(‘loved’/’banned’)updatestheirLast.fmprofileasto theirpreferences. 123 Last.fmwouldseemhencetoofferwhatPPLhaslabelled‘customised radio’;themusicplayedonLast.fmisselectedthroughsoftwareattunedtoeachuser’s particulartastes,insteadofthoseofthetraditionalradioDJ’s.YettheDJisnotactually substitutedbytheuser,sinceabsolutecontrolisnotonoffer. ThesecondwayoflisteningtomusiconLast.fmisthroughthePreviews.Thesecanbe selectedbytheuseratatimeandplaceofherchoosing,butthefulltrackwillusuallynotbe played–a30Ͳsecondsamplewillbeofferedinstead.Anexceptionisprovidedtousersinthe UK,USandGermany:Last.fmoffersaservicecalledFreeOnͲDemandtouserslocatedin thesecountries,allowingthemtolistentospecificpiecesuptothreetimesinfulllength. Afterwards,thesetrackstoowillreverttothe30Ͳsecondpreviewnorm. (b)Simuze.nlisaDutchonlineopencontentcommunity.Simuzeuserscanuploadmusic ontothesiteunderthetermsofaCreativeCommonslicense.Inordertodoso,usersmust bethesolerightͲholders,i.e.composersofthemusic,authorsofanylyrics,performersand producersofthefinaltrack.Inthecaseofcollaborativeworkswithmultipleauthors,consent willhavetobeobtainedbyallbeforetheworkcanlegallybemadeavailableonSimuze. Musicthathasenteredthepublicdomainmayalsobeuploaded.Onceonthesite,themusic canbedownloadedorstreamedbyusersonanonͲdemandbasis.Recently,Simuzehasalso addedaninternetradioservicewhichexclusivelyplaystracksreleasedunderCreative Commonstermsonitswebsite.Afinalpossibilityinvolveslisteningtoplaylistsoftracks compiledbySimuzeusers. Whathappenswhensoundrecordingsareplayedoneachofthesetwowebsites?Atthetimewhen SimuzeonlyprovidedonlinemusicservicesonanonͲdemandbasis,whetherdownloading/streaming individualtracksorplaylists,noequitableremunerationhadtobepaidtoSENA.Instead,therightͲ holders’exclusiverightsunderArticle3(2)oftheInfoSocDirectivehadtobeclearedforthemaking availableoftheirworktothepublic.OnSimuze,thisisachievedthroughlicensingunderthetermsof theCreativeCommonslicenses.ThevariousradiochannelsofLast.fm,ontheotherhand,presenta differentstory.WhenstreamedonLast.fm,atrackisnotbeingmadeavailabletothepublicfroma placeandatatimeindividuallychosenbyeachmemberofthepublic,butisinsteadcommunicated tothepublicwithinthesenseofArticle8(2)RentalRightDirective.Equitableremunerationispaidby thesitetotheperformersandphonogramproducersresponsibleforitscreation.Last.fm’sFreeOnͲ Demandservicebringsthemakingavailablerightbackintoplayand,thereby,theneedtoclear exclusiverights.Presumably,itisforthisprecisereasonthattheserviceisonlyavailableinalimited numberofcountriesandplayings:negotiatingtheclearanceofexclusiverightsisamoreexpensive andcomplicatedbusinessthanpayingremunerationfeestoasinglecollectingsocietyundera prefixedscheme. However,nowthatSimuzehasstartedofferingitsCCͲlicensedmaterialintheformofan automaticallygeneratedradioservice,similartowhatisprovidedbyLast.fm,Article7oftheDutch NeighbouringRightsActbecomesrelevant:underthecurrentDutchnonͲwaivablestatutorylicensing 123 It should be noted that the free channels on Last.fm are only fully available to users who live in the UK, US or Germany. Users from other countries are only allowed a 30-track trial, after which subscription to the site is required. 39 system,SENAhastherighttocollectmoniesfromSimuzeandSimuzehastheobligationtopay remunerationsdespitetheattachmentofaCreativeCommonslicensetothesoundrecordingsthatit plays.Onelegallineofargumentationthatcouldpossiblyenableavoidanceofthiseventualitywould bethefollowing:ifthealternativeinterpretationofthephrasingofArticle7WNRwereacceptedand weweretoacknowledgethatawaivablecompulsorylicensesystemwasinoperationinthe NetherlandsinsteadofanonͲwaivableone,remunerationfeeswouldnothavetobepaid,in derogationtothenorm,astherightͲholders’consentwouldhavealreadybeenprovidedbymeansof theCClicense.ThiswouldbepossiblewhetherornottherightͲholdersweremembersofSENA,due tothefactthatSENAmembershipdoesnotrequireanyassignmentofrightsonthepartofthe ownerofrelatedrights. IfLast.fmattemptedtoexclusivelyplayCCͲlicensedsoundrecordingsandiftheproducersofthe tracksplayedonitsradiostationswerenotPPLmembers,underUKlaw,equitableremuneration wouldlikewisenotbedue:therightͲholderswouldhave,throughtheapplicationoftheCClicense, waivedallremunerationrights.GiventhatPPLcanonlycollectfeesfortheworkslistedintheir repertoire,nomandatetocollectequitableremunerationexistsforthephonogramsofnonͲ members.Nevertheless,theadvantagesofsuchaschemeforLast.fmarenotprominent:aslongas thesitewishestocontinueplayingtheextensivecollectionofmaterialmanagedbyPPL,blanket licensescoveringthismaterialmuststillbeenteredintowithPPL,whiletheheightoftheroyalties accordinglyduewouldremainunaffected.Thesubtletyofclearedrightsforalimitednumberof trackslosesitssignificanceincomparisontothevastrepertoireofPPLandinthefaceofablunt systemgearedtowardsefficientcollection.Theonlymeasurableconsequencethatwouldensue wouldbethattheexclusionoftherightͲownerswholicensedtheirworkunderCreativeCommons andarenotmembersofPPLfromashareoftheredistributedremunerations. 4.FlexibleCollectiveManagementandtheRighttoEquitableRemuneration Itseemsevidentfromtheanalysisabovethataflexiblecollectivemanagementsystemwouldnotbe necessarysoastoenabletheuseofCreativeCommonslicensesintheareaofrelatedrights,asitisin copyright.ThetermsoftheCClicensesprecludethis.TheCCclausesonthedifferentlicensesystems ensurethevalidityoftheattachmentofaCClicensetoaphonogram:theonlythingatstakeisthe releaseoftheuserfromthepaymentoftheequitableremuneration.Couldaprojectsuchasthe Buma/Stemrapilot,whichaimsatenablingrightͲholderstobothmakeuseofCreativeCommons licensesandbemembersofacollectingsociety,helpaddressthisissue?Whencollective managementisactivated,remunerationiscollectedinallcasesofuseofaphonogramin broadcastingorcommunicationstothepublicandrightͲownerscannothaltthecollectionof equitableremunerationontheirbehalf,thusmixingandmatchingdifferentmethodsofexploiting theirsoundrecordings;insteadtheyareforcedintoatakeͲitͲorͲleaveͲitsysteminwhichtheyeither jointhecollectingsocietyandreceiveremunerationorabstainfromequitableremuneration completely,althoughtheusermightstillbecharged.Thismeansthat,ifperformersandphonogram producersaretocombinethesetwomethods(CreativeCommonslicensingandcollective management)ofexploitingtheirsoundrecordings,withtheobjectiveofreleasingusersfromthe obligationtopayequitableremuneration,theonlypathavailabletothemwouldbepreciselysucha cooperationproject. Yet, in the field of related rights, a stumbling block appears: depending on the jurisdiction, the collectingsocietywillnotalwaysbeaffordedthediscretiontodecidewhentocollectremuneration andwhentoabstainfromcollection,butwillberequiredtocollectinvariably.Thatwillbethecase for example in the nonͲwaivable statutory remuneration system currently in force in the Netherlands; SENA collects remuneration regardless of whether or not the rightͲowners are SENA membersandwhetherornottheyhaveconsentedtotheuseoftheirphonograminabroadcastor 40 communicationtothepublicwithoutpaymentofequitableremuneration.Inthissituation,aflexible collectivemanagementsystembasedonanagreementbetweenSENAandrepresentativesofusers suchasthatenvisionedaboveinPartIISection1,wherebythepercentageofCCͲlicensedmaterial broadcastorcommunicatedtothepublicbyauserinfluencestheheightofthefeepayabletothe pointwherea100%CCͲlicensedrepertoirecorrespondstoaequitableremunerationofzero,would be worth considering. Such a system can also be imposed onto SENA by the District Court of The Hague,accordingtotheprovisionsofArticle7(4)WNR.Conceivablytheschemecouldbelimitedto onlycertaintypesofCCͲlicenses,suchasthosewithanonͲcommercialclause,ashappensinthecase oftheBuma/Stemrapilotproject. Almost the same situation would evolve should the alternative interpretation of Article 7 WNR suggested above (see Part II, Section 1) be accepted and a waivable compulsory license system instituted in the Netherlands. In such a case, the rightͲowner would have the right to consent to certain uses of his phonogram for broadcasting or communication to the public. For all uses for broadcastingorcommunicationtothepublictowhichtherightͲownerhadnotconsented,theuser wouldbeobligedtoinvestinablanketlicensefromSENA,whoseheightwillnothavebeenadjusted howevertotakeaccountofthenumberofCCͲtracksofwhichtheusermakesuse.Theadvantageof aflexiblecollectivemanagementsysteminthissituationthereforewouldlieinthecircumventionnot of legal imperatives or the contractual terms of the CC licenses, but of SENA’s current operational practice. IntheUK,thesystemisavoluntarylicensingoneandmembershipofthephonogramproducerinPPL comes with the assignment of rights, meaning that the right to release a phonogram under a CC license is realised solely in the ability of the rightͲowner to abstain from PPL membership and therebynotpartakeofthemoniesdistributed.Inaddition,s.182DCDPAprecludesanyagreement between the PPL and performers that would exclude or restrict the right of the performer to equitableremuneration–aflexiblecollectivemanagementprojectthatenabledperformerstoreject equitable remuneration for some uses of their phonogram in a communication to the public or a broadcast (e.g. commercial uses) would be contrary to UK legislation. What could of course be implemented,eitherthroughanorderoftheCopyrightTribunaloradecisionofPPLitself,wouldbe asystemwherebytheheightofthefeepayablewouldbeloweredaccordingtothenumberofnonͲ PPLͲmanaged(andthereforepossiblyevenCCͲlicensed)tracksintheuser’splaylists. WouldtheschemehaveanimpactontheoptionsopentowebsitessuchasSimuzeorLast.fm? Last.fmwouldprobablybeindifferenttotheproject,giventhatthehugenumberofPPLͲmanaged trackstheyplaymakesalicenseanimperativeandtheeffectthatnonͲPPLtrackscouldhaveonthe heightoftheroyaltiespayableminimal.Simuzeontheotherhandwouldbenefitfromaflexible collectivemanagementschemethatallowedforinternetradiostationsplayingmusiclicensedunder aCreativeCommonslicense,withadjustedorzeroequitableremunerationpayabletoSENA.Ifthe schemewasonethatonlypermittedtheuseofNCCreativeCommonslicenseshowever,itislikely that(dependingofcourseonthespecifictermsofthescheme)neithersitewouldqualifyfor participation,asbothfeatureadvertisementsontheirwebpages.Last.fminadditionchargesusers forsubscriptions.124 124 This conclusion is derived on the basis of the current terms in force for the Buma/Stemra pilot project for musical works. According to Appendix 4 of the ‘Special Conditions for the Buma/Stemra Agreement with Regard to Non-Commercial Creative Commons Licences’, the term ‘commercial use’ encompasses any ‘forprofit’ activity, including the making available online and communication to the public of the work in exchange for payment or other forms of financial compensation, such as the use of the work in combination with advertisements, advertising campaigns or any other kind of activity whose purpose is to generate income for the user or a third party. For a digital copy of the Agreement in Dutch, please see: http://www.bumastemra.nl/nlNL/MuziekrechtenVastleggen/Pilot+Creative+Commons/Speciale+voorwaarden.htm. 41 Whatcertainlydoesemergeasaconcretesolutionfromtheanalysisengagedinaboveisthefact thattheexistenceofastatutorylicensingsystem,whethercompulsoryandwaivable,compulsory andnonͲwaivableorvoluntary,forthecollectionoftheequitableremunerationpayableto performersandphonogramproducersfortheuseoftheirphonogramsforacommunicationtothe publicandbroadcastingbywirelessmeansdoesnotinterferewiththeoperationofflexible collectivemanagementschemesinthefieldofcopyright,suchastheBuma/Stemrapilotproject. Aslongastheowneroftherightsinthesoundrecordinghasnotassignedhisrightstoacollecting societyandhasthereforeretainedtherighttograntCreativeCommonslicensesoverhis phonograms,theadditionalapplicationofaCClicensetothecorrespondingsoundrecordingwill beentirelyvalid,independentmoreoverofthetermsofthelicense(Commercial/NonͲCommercial, ShareAlikeornot,DerivativesorNoDerivatives).Theonlycaveatthatshouldbeemphasisedis that,dependingonthenatureofthelicensingsysteminplace(nonͲwaivablecompulsorylicense scheme/waivablecompulsorylicensescheme/voluntarylicensescheme),thenatureofthe phonogramasacommercialoneornot,thepreferredmodeofdeliveryoftheuserandthe operationalpracticeofthecollectingsociety,equitableremunerationmayormaynotstillhaveto bepaidbyhimtothecompetentcollectingsociety,inaccordancewiththeconclusionsdrawnin thePartIII,Sections1and2ofthispaper. 42 Conclusion WhencontemplatingtheapplicationofCreativeCommonslicensestomusicalworksinthecontext oftheuser’sobligationtopayequitableremunerationtotheperformerandphonogramproducerfor useofaphonograminacommunicationtothepublicorbroadcast,threearethemaincircumstances tokeepinmind: (a)Whethertheworkhasbeenpublishedforcommercialpurposes; (b)Whethertheworkisofferedbytheuseronaninteractive,onͲdemandbasis; (c)Whattypeoflicensingschemeisestablishedinthecountryinquestionforthe managementoftheright. Iftheworkhasnotbeenpublishedforcommercialpurposes,noremunerationfeeneedbepaidby theuser.MakingtheworkavailablebywireorwirelessmeansthroughanonͲdemandservicewill qualifyaspublicationforcommercialpurposesinmostcountries,regardlessofthepresenceorlack ofactualcommercialintentions.Therefore,weconcludethatarightͲholderwhohasplacedhis soundrecordingontheinternetunderthetermsofaCreativeCommonslicenseinsuchaswaythat membersofthepublicmayaccesstheworkatatimeandplaceoftheirownchoosinghasindeed publishedthatsoundrecordingforcommercialpurposes,withinthemeaningofArticle8(2)Rental RightDirectiveontherighttoequitableremuneration.WhetherthesamewillbetrueforarightͲ holderwhohaspublishedhisphonogramthroughthetraditionalmeansofphysicalcopiesina reasonablequantityandunderthetermsofaCreativeCommonslicenseremainsunclear. Iftheworkissubsequentlyofferedbytheuser,throughanonͲdemandservice,however,Article8(2) RentalRightDirectivewillnotapply,seeingasthemakingavailableofworksonaninteractivebasis doesnotconstitutepartofthecommunicationrightintheareaofrelatedrights.If,ontheother hand,theworkisbroadcastorcommunicatedtothepublicbytheuser,eitherthroughtraditional mediaorthroughsuchnewservicesaswebcasting,simulcasting,internetradioornearͲonͲdemand services,Article8(2)foreseesanequitableremunerationrightfortheperformerandthephonogram producerandaquestionwillariseastowhethertheapplicationoftheCClicensecanprecludethe collectionofsuchremuneration. Thetypeofthelicensingschemeestablishedforthemanagementoftherightwillnotpreventthe validityoftheattachmentofaCreativeCommonslicense,unlessofcoursetherelatedrightsowner hasassignedherrightstothecompetentcollectingsociety.ThetermsoftheCClicensesthemselves ensurethisresult,byforeseeingdifferentconsequencesfortheattachmentofthelicensedepending onthesystemwithinwhichittakesplace.Whatthetypeofthelicensingsystemdoesaffectis whetherornottheuserwillsubsequentlybeobligedtopayequitableremuneration:inthecaseof nonͲwaivablecompulsorylicenseschemes,equitableremunerationmuststillbepaid,howeverinthe caseofwaivablecompulsorylicenseschemesorvoluntarylicenseschemes,thelicensorwaivesthe righttocollectroyalties.Yetinpractice,theabilitytogiveanysubstantialmeaningtotheseterms willnotsolelybeinfluencedbythelegalprovisionsineffectorthecontractualtermsoftheCC licenses,butinadditionbytheoperationalpracticeofthecompetentcollectingsociety:insystems wherecollectingsocietiescontrolextensiverepertoires,therelativelysmallnumberofCCͲlicensed phonogramsdwindlesinsignificanceandcannotinfluencetheheightofthefeethatmustbepaidby theuserforablanketlicense. Alternatively,thecollectingsocietyorthecourtscansupportthereleaseoftheuserfromthe obligationtopayequitableremunerationforthebroadcastorcommunicationtothepublicofCCͲ licensesmaterial:thecollectingsocietymightdecide,eitheronitsowninitiativeorbyjudicialorder, toadoptamodelforthecalculationoftheheightofequitableremunerationthattakesaccountof 43 thepercentageofCCͲlicensedphonogramsintheuser’srepertory.Wherepermittedbythelegal framework,suchasystemcouldevenconceivablytaketheformofaflexiblecollectivemanagement systemthatenablesrightͲholderstobothtakeadvantageofthecollectivemanagementofsome phonogramsandreleaseothersunderthetermsofaCClicense.Althoughaflexiblecollective managementsystemisnotnecessaryintheareaofrelatedrightssoastoenablethevalid attachmentofaCClicense,itmightbeusefulinenablingrightͲholderstotakefulladvantageofthe opportunitypresentedbyCreativeCommonstoachieveabroaddisseminationoftheirworkona royaltyͲfreebasisbyensuringthattheattachmentofalicensetotheirphonogramhasactualandnot justtheoreticaleffect.Whatisinanycasecertainisthat,aslongagainastheyhavenotbeen assignedtoacollectingsociety,thecollectivemanagementofrelatedrightsdoesnotaffectthe legalityofflexiblecollectivemanagementsystemsintheareaofcopyright,suchastheBuma/Stemra pilotproject. ThetermsoftheCreativeCommonslicenseunderwhichthephonogramispublishedorwhichare agreeduponaspartofaflexiblecollectivemanagementsystemdonotinfluencetheseresults. 44

Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are

Related documents

Products

Support

Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib