Document [original]

D7.2 Analysis of European IP Laws for

Audio Branding Context

Project Reference

688122

—

ABC_DJ

—

H2020-ICT-2015

Deliverable/WP/Tasks

D7.2 /WP7/T7.2

Delivery Date

31/12/2016

Main Author(s)

Lucía Reguera, LMONK, l[email protected]

Noemí Planas, LMONK, ir[email protected]

Co-Author(s)

Bruno Muñoz, LMONK, [email protected]

Quality Assurance

Alessandro Canepa, PIAC, [email protected]

Martin Herzog, TUB, herzog@tu-berlin.de

Filename

<D7.2_ABC_DJ_Intellectual_Property_Laws.v1.3.pdf>

Publication Level

PU=Public

ABC_DJ - Artist-to-Business-to-Business-to-Consumer Audio Branding System

contact: www.abcdj.eu

email: in[email protected]

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

This document contains material, which is the copyright of certain ABC_DJ consortium

parties. This work is licensed under the Creatice Commons Licence CC BY-NC 4.0,

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

Disclaimer

Neither the ABC_DJ consortium as a whole, nor a certain party of the ABC_DJ consortium

warrant that the information contained in this document is capable of use, nor that use of

the information is free from risk, and accepts no liability for loss or damage suffered by any

person using this information.

Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission, is

responsible for any use which might be made of the information in this document.

The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the policies of the European Commission.

Project Information

Full project title

ABC_DJ — Artist-to-Business-to-Business-to-Consumer Audio

Branding System

Project Coordinator

Stefan Weinzierl / TU Berlin

Project ID

688122 — ABC DJ — H2020-ICT-2015

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s

Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant

agreement No 688122.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3      D7.2 
 
 
© ABC_DJ Consortium, 2017    3 of 39 
Table of Contents 
 
History ......................................................................................................................................4 
Glossary .................................................................................................................................... 5 
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 6 
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7 
Rights and Management ................................................................................................. 9 
1 Right Holders ................................................................................................................. 9 
1.1 Authors (and Publishers) ....................................................................................... 10 
1.2 Performers .............................................................................................................. 10 
1.3 Phonogram Producer ............................................................................................. 11 
2 Types of Rights ............................................................................................................. 11 
2.1 Moral Rights ........................................................................................................... 11 
2.2 Patrimonial Rights ................................................................................................. 11 
2.2.1 Exclusive Rights .................................................................................................. 12 
2.2.2 Remuneration Rights ......................................................................................... 13 
3 Individual vs. Collective Management ......................................................................... 14 
4 Creative Commons and Copyleft.................................................................................. 15 
Legislation ....................................................................................................................... 18 
1 International Treaties ................................................................................................... 18 
2 Directives ...................................................................................................................... 19 
3 National Law ............................................................................................................... 22 
3.1 General Overview .................................................................................................. 22 
3.2 European Non-EU Members ................................................................................ 26 
3.3 Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 26 
Case Law ........................................................................................................................ 28 
1 CJEU Judgements ....................................................................................................... 28 
2 National Case Law ....................................................................................................... 30 
Future Perspectives ........................................................................................................ 31 
1 Digital Single Market .................................................................................................... 31 
2 Blockchain ................................................................................................................... 32 
3 New Models ..................................................................................................................33 
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 35 
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 38 
References ............................................................................................................................. 39 
 

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

History

Version

Name

Date

Remark

V0.1

Muñoz, Planas, Reguera

2016-02-01

Definition of contents

V0.2

Muñoz, Planas, Reguera

2016-06-26

Refinement of contents

V0.3

Muñoz, Planas, Reguera

2016-07-14

Final version of contents

V0.4

Planas, Reguera

2016-10-20

First version of report

V0.5

Muñoz

2016-12-15

Final version of report for

proofreading

V0.6

Schönrock

2016-12-26

Proofreading 1 executed

V0.7

Planas

2016-12-30

Compilation of final report

V1.0

Wages

2016-12-31

Final version submitted to EC

V1.1

Wages

2017-02-26

Document title changed from

“Analysis of Intellectual Property

Laws in Europe” to “Analysis of

European IP Laws for Audio

Branding Context” for

clarification reasons.

Minor layout corrections (track

changes).

V1.2

Wages

2017-03-20

Name correction as requested by

the EC’s department in charge of

V1.3

Planas, Reguera

2017-04-24

Concrete specifications based on

recommendations by the EC

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

Glossary

Acronym/Abbreviation

Full Name/Description

ABC_DJ

Artist-to-Business-to-Business-to-Consumer audio branding

system

Creative Commons

CJEU

Court of Justice of the European Union

CMO

Collective Management Organisation

DAO

Decentralised Autonomous Organisation

DSM

Digital Single Market

Intellectual Property

WIPO

World Intellectual Property Organisation

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

Executive Summary

This document is the first of two dealing with the legal regulations and the management of

the Intellectual Property (IP) rights involved in audio branding processes and is

complemented with document D7.1.

After conducting a thorough search of bibliography both online and in specialised libraries,

and holding informal meetings with the Commission’s department in charge of copyright

policy and legislation, and copyright expert Silke von Lewinski, amongst others, we

realised that there are no reports or compendia dealing with European IP laws from the

point of view of audio branding.

Thus, we had to start from scratch and carry out a documentation work in which we

analysed the existing laws, bibliography and research on general copyright law, and apply

it to the field of audio branding.

Gathered information and conclusions are transferred into recommendations that have to

be taken into account for novel and current audio branding services and business models.

The current document exclusively deals with legislation and case law, and only covers the

general overview of collective management. Details on how Collective Management

Organizations collect tariffs, identify owners and distribute the revenues originated by the

usage of works in audio branding processes work is part of D7.1.



Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

1. Introduction

In order to offer a legal analysis of audio branding, we need to examine several questions:

the type of rights generated by the different production processes involved; the holders of

according rights; who is in charge of managing them; and, finally, the laws regulating all

of the above, both on local and European level, and the practical application thereof.

Given the lack of legal literature on the subject matter at hand, as no study exists analysing

audio branding from a legal perspective, we've had to conduct our own investigation,

obtaining documentation from several different sources, in order to produce this report. A

detailed list of these sources can be found under References.

Before we start explaining the rights generated during the audio branding processes, we

would like to summarise what they consist of, and their workflow. Audio branding is the

strategic use of sonic elements to develop and manage companies' corporate identity, and

increase brands' value. We can discern several categories of audio branding, but the one

we will be covering in this report is background music, which refers to the sounds meant

to be listened to passively in commercial establishments (in-store music), audio-visual

media (synchronisation) as well as electronic media (background music on websites and

blogs).

For all those different uses, we are talking about recorded music (as opposed to live music),

which can be either created specifically for the client or pre-existing commercial music. In

both cases we are referring to what, from a legal point of view, is known as a phonogram

or sound recording, meaning the aural fixation (recording) of a musical work or other

sounds. The phonogram comprises a part of composition or authorship of the musical

work, and a part of interpretation or execution, the respective owners of which will be

explained in detail in Chapter 2.

In the case of in-store music, the music provider supplies the sales point with a list of songs

(sound recordings or phonograms) to be played through its sound system, either in an

analogue format (via a storing device) or in a digital format (through real-time online

streaming). With synchronisations, the music supervisor or music searcher supplies the

audiovisual producer with a list of songs to be included with an audiovisual work (film,

series, advertisement) and subsequently broadcast in cinemas, on television or online.

With background music for web pages, the provider or supervisor delivers a list of songs

to be played during the user's visit to a website. All these different uses (in-store music,

broadcast in films/television/online) generate what is known as rights of communication

to the public (performance rights), in their different forms.

For in-store music and background music for websites, a repository or store for the songs

needs to be created prior to their transmission. This generates what is known as

mechanical rights. In the case of synchronisations, the inclusion of a musical work in an

audiovisual one leads to what is known as first fixation right. A detailed description of these

rights and their implications will be given as well in Chapter 2.

In general, management of all these rights is carried out jointly rather than individually,

through what is known as Collective Management Organisations (CMOs). These

organisations collect, on behalf of their members, the rights holders, the fees accumulated

from the use of their works. Therefore, the CMOs invoice the different agents involved in

background music, provided that its use generates a right. For example, both the

background music service provider and the commercial space where the work is

transmitted in have to pay the corresponding fees to the CMOs, the former because of the

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

mechanical rights, and the latter because of the performance right. The collective

management of the rights implied in audio branding will be covered in D7.1.

All the aforementioned rights, as well as their holders and the way they are managed, are

regulated by Intellectual Property (IP) laws. In Europe, there are as many laws as there are

countries, as well as directives that partly harmonise all of them, albeit only partially. There

is also a series of international treaties about copyright which the different countries can

subscribe to voluntarily. These laws and treaties, and their implementation mechanisms,

will be explained in detail in Chapter 3.

There are alternative ways to manage an author's right upon their work. In some cases, the

authors decide to renounce the copyright model and choose to use the Creative Commons

or Copyleft models instead. In Chapter 3, those models and their legal implications will be

explained, as well as their impact on the background music processes.

Whenever there is a copyright infraction or any discrepancy regarding the interpretation

of copyright laws, the issue needs to be settled in court. In Chapter 4, we will outline

sentences dictated by both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the

most relevant courts in the different Member States that refer or are of interest to audio

branding. The majority of case law covers the use of background music in semi-private

venues, such as consulting rooms. We will also discuss several rulings regarding the use of

'rights-free' works.

The new technologies are already part of the audio branding processes. We increasingly

see how traditional analogue systems of musical supply to clients are replaced with

streaming. But more new advances can happen. In recent times, there is much talk about

the use of blockchain in music usage monitoring and copyright payment. In Chapter 5, we

will summarise what this system consists of, and the possible impact on the background

music processes. We will also analyse the most recent modifications regarding copyright

legislation as proposed by the European Commission under the Digital Single Market

initiative, as well as other future trends.

Finally, after analysing all those subjects, we will offer our recommendations and possible

improvements regarding the existing copyright laws, and their practical application, so as

to improve the management of the audio branding processes in all their dimensions, and

make them more efficient.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

2. Rights and Management

Nowadays it is very difficult to find a shop, bar, restaurant, shopping centre, or waiting

room with no background music. But making that possible involves many different

elements, ranging from right holders and different types of rights to contracts, transfers

and so forth, having to be aligned and agreed upon, without which we could not enjoy the

music that accompanies us during many of our daily activities.

The aim of this chapter is to take a closer look at those elements in order to get a clear idea

of the legal aspects that have to be taken into account when planning an audio branding

strategy.

2.1 Right Holders

When we talk about IP right holders, we find a very wide range of figures related to different

kinds of works. For example, when we think of a book, a photograph or a film, the writer,

the photographer, the director, actors, the scriptwriter et cetera immediately come to mind.

Given the nature of the task at hand, we will focus on the music field exclusively.

As we already explained in the Introduction, the audio branding processes use recorded

songs that, in legal terms, are called phonograms or sound recordings: any exclusively

aural fixation of the execution of a musical work or other sounds.

In order for a phonogram to exist, three requirements need to be met:

 There has to be a previous musical work, or, alternatively, sounds.

 There has to be a performance of the musical work or sounds by someone.

 There has to be an exclusively aural fixation or recording of that performance.

The ownership of any of these parts belongs to three fundamental figures: the author and,

if applicable, their publisher; the artist or performer/interpreter; and the phonogram

producer.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

2.1.1 Authors (and Publishers)

The author is the person who creates the musical work, in such a way that without them,

the work would not exist. In music, there are two types of authors: the composer or creator

of the sounds, and the lyricist or song text writer, in the case that they are non-instrumental.

In all European and international legislation, both are equally recognised and protected

under the same definition of authorship, and both have the same rights.

The authors can be a single or several persons, i.e. a song can be composed, and its lyrics

can be written by one or several different persons who share ownership of the work in the

percentages corresponding to the contribution of each individual to the work. IP laws

usually do not reflect the minimum and maximum share each individual can hold, but that

is usually agreed upon in the rules of registration of the works, for example with the

collecting societies.

The author can manage the rights granted to them by the law (which we will explain later

in this document) themselves, but that would imply an amount of time and resources the

author might not have at their disposal. There is one figure especially important to the

author, as it can improve commercial exploitation of their work and warrant the correct

administration and protection thereof worldwide: the music publisher. The music

publisher's job is to promote, manage, distribute, protect and commercially exploit the

musical work created by the author.

In order for the publisher to carry out these tasks, a signed contract with the author in

which the latter grants the former the exploitation rights, is essential. In some European

legislations, such as in Spain and France, the conditions such a contract has to meet are

regulated, like, for example, the maximum percentage of rights the author can grant the

publisher (generally 50%).

2.1.2 Performers

If there is an author and a work created by the author, there needs to be someone to execute

said work: the artist or performer.

At the 1961 Rome Convention, the performing artist was defined in article 3 as “actors,

singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, or

otherwise perform literary or artistic works”.

The artist and the author are often the same person. However, there are significant

differences between the two figures. The author is the copyright holder, but the artist

belongs to another group of right holders within the realm of copyright. The rights they

hold are known as neighbouring or related rights, and their extension and authority are

not as broad as those of copyright.

The artist is the holder of the so-called paternity right, i.e. the right to claim to be identified

as the performer of their performances, and the right of integrity, i.e. the right to object to

any distortion, mutilation or other modification of their performances, as established in

article 5 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).

The artist usually signs a contract with the phonogram producer, a record contract, in

which the former grants the latter the right to exploit their work, which in practice means

distribution, mechanical and performance rights, in exchange for a compensation. This

contract, as well as the publishing contract, will be explained in paragraph 2.2.2.1 of this

document.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

2.1.3 Phonogram Producer

A phonogram producer is the physical person or legal entity under whose initiative and

responsibility the first fixation of the musical work is made. This person could even be the

author who created the work, or the artist who performed it. Among the tasks the

phonogram producer has to execute, after signing a record contract with the artist, are

recording, manufacturing, marketing, and distributing the work.

The phonogram producer will be the one entitled to grant licenses for the use of the sound

recordings to a background or in-store music provider, both on behalf of himself and of

the artist, either directly or via CMOs.

2.2 Types of Rights

2.2.1 Moral Rights

Moral rights acknowledge the condition of author or artist and the right to control the

integrity of their work. In essence they are rights that allow their holder to take certain

measures in order to preserve the personal bond they have with the work.

While the phonogram producer also belongs to the group of neighbouring right holders,

there is a big difference between an artist and a producer, as the latter cannot claim any

moral rights.

It is important to take these rights into account. In the case that an author does not wish to

link their music to a brand, because they feel goes against their beliefs, ethics and so on,

and even though they have transferred the exploitation rights to a publisher, thus

authorising its use, the author's decision and will have to be respected at all times.

2.2.2 Patrimonial Rights

This second group of rights allow the right holder to receive a compensation for the use or

exploitation of their work or performance.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

2.2.2.1 Exclusive Rights

Exclusive rights grant the holder thereof control over their work, allowing them to

authorise or prohibit exploitation acts by the user, and obtaining a retribution for the use

of the work or performance.

In most EU countries, the author of a work can prohibit or authorise the following:

 Reproduction of the work (making copies);

 Distribution of said copies;

 Public performance (music being played on a sound system in bars, clubs,

restaurants, venues, shops, etc.);

 Broadcast through radio or public communication through other media

(distribution of a signal via wired or wireless media that can be received by

individuals who have the necessary equipment to decode the signal);

 Translation of the work to other languages;

 Adaptation of the work.

Although European and international regulation of this type of rights does exist, each

national legislation can establish their own peculiarities, such as limitations to the rights,

which, along with other special characteristics, will be explained in point 3.3 of this

document.

Regarding artists and producers, several treaties and directives that will be presented in

Chapter 3 grant them certain rights, which can be summarised as follows:

 Right of reproduction. The right to authorise direct or indirect reproduction of the

sound recording through any procedure or in any form.

 Right of distribution. The right to authorise the public distribution of the original

piece or copies of the sound recording through sale or other property transferences.

 Right of rental. The right to authorise commercial rental to the public of the

originals or copies of the sound recording, subjected to national legislation of the

contracting parties.

 Right of making available to the public. The right to authorise public

communication, by wire or wireless means, of any performance or execution

recorded on a sound recording, in such a way that members of the public may access

these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

The owners of exclusive rights can transfer them to third parties, as is the case with music

publishers, who, via a publishing contract with the author of the work, acquire the original

rights from the author in exchange for financial compensation. Idem for artists and

producers with the record contract.

Regarding the duration of the rights, in the case of copyright it is 70 years starting from the

author's demise. In the case of artists and phonogram producers, the duration is 70 years

from the recording date or from the first legal publication, if it takes place within the 70

years after the recording. However, it must be taken into account that some legislations,

such as in Spain, established a duration of 80 years, a term that will stay in force for the

works that fall under the old legislation. Therefore, before assuming that a work has fallen

into the public domain, the year of the author's demise and the publication date should be

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

verified, and the different legislations checked for the duration in each territory, in case it

varies.

It is important and, to say the least, interesting for ABC_DJ to mention a category within

the reproduction right: synchronisation of a musical work in another work.

The idea of synchronising is to bring together in one expressive resource, normally an

audiovisual work, sound recordings with, usually moving, images. Therefore, in its fixation,

both recordings have to interpenetrate a take on a meaning, harmonise, collaborate.

The musical work to be synchronised can be an existing piece or one created bespoken to

be incorporated in another audiovisual work or recording, giving way to a new work.

With the synchronisation, a use of the work is carried out, which comes with a

remuneration or payment that will be done just once – in this case the payment would be

for the inclusion or first fixation of the work in a new audiovisual piece, whether that be a

commercial, a film, a documentary or a play. However, afterwards, the work will be publicly

communicated, which gives way to successive payments, depending on the duration of the

piece, the number of times the communication takes place, in which countries, etc.

2.2.2.2 Remuneration Rights

Remuneration rights, unlike exclusive rights, do not allow the holder to authorise or forbid

the user to carry out the acts of exploitation they desire, but they do force the user to pay a

certain amount as compensation for the use.

There has been a gradual development through several international and European legal

texts until its realisation in the different national laws, since the 1961 Rome Convention,

established that a single equitable remuneration should be paid for transmitting

phonograms through radio broadcast or any other form of public communication.

For a better understanding of this right, we have to interpret it as a compensation for the

use of the sound recording. This way, every venue or store has to pay a remuneration to

artists and phonogram producers every time a song is played in their establishment.

In most countries, this remuneration is determined by mutual agreement between

collecting societies and users. Some countries, such as France, Poland and the United

Kingdom, establish an administrative organ if an agreement cannot be reached. In Croatia

and Germany, it is the collecting societies who decide on the fees, and users have the

possibility to challenge them. France has included a direct reference to the revenues

deriving from the exploitation in its legislation for the determination of the equitable

remuneration. Belgium has detailed fees through its royal decrees. In the legislations of

Belgium, Hungary, Greece, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia it is stipulated

that both artists and phonogram producers are allowed to receive an equally divided

remuneration.

As we see, in spite of the fact that these rights is included in national legislations, there are

numerous differences between them, partly because not all countries have fully

implemented Directive 2006/115, and because the Directive itself establishes a leeway for

the different countries, such as with the concept of “equitable”. However, the CJEU has

given different criteria to different countries to determine this remuneration: there has to

be a balance between the interests of artists and phonogram producers in receiving the

remuneration for a sound recording in particular, and the interests of the third parties who

communicate the sound recording; the commercial use given to the sound recording has

to be taken into account.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

In document 7.1 we take a closer look at the fees of the different European collecting

societies; who collects what, when and how; the distribution of the fees, etc., answering

many possible questions raised upon reading this report.

2.3 Individual vs. Collective Management

There are certain kinds of use, mainly those linked to remuneration rights, that right

holders thereof find very difficult, if not impossible, to manage individually.

It is impossible for right holders to contact and monitor every TV channel and radio station,

or visit each and every establishment where their sound recording is or will be played in

order to negotiate the necessary authorisations and the remuneration they should perceive.

That is where the CMOs come in, which perform the task of exercising copyrights and

neighbouring rights in the name of the right holders, representing them and protecting

their interests.

All copyright and neighbouring right holders in every field of IP can be members of a

collecting society: authors, publishers, composers, writers, musicians, performing artists,

and phonogram producers.

When a right holder becomes a member of a collecting society, they should provide

information about their personal data and their protected work or performance. That way,

the information becomes part of the collecting society's national or local repertoire (special

mention should be made of the international repertoire, which is managed by CMOs all

over the world). That way, these entities have all the data necessary to locate the use of the

works and performances and can estimate the retributions or remunerations that should

be paid to the right holders.

In the field of music, the rights managed by collecting societies are the following:

 The right of public performance, i.e. the music performed in bars, restaurants, clubs

and other establishments and public spaces.

 The right of broadcast, meaning live and recorded performances broadcast on radio

and television.

 The right of mechanical reproduction of the music works, i.e. the reproduction of

the work in any recorded form.

 The right of performing artists and phonogram producers to receive remuneration

for the broadcast or public communication of sound recordings.

We can generally discern at least one collecting society in charge of managing copyrights

in each country, another one for the management of artists' rights, one for phonogram

producers and, in some countries, entities that cover mechanical reproduction rights

exclusively.

The CMOs mainly grant licenses (meaning both licenses for exclusive rights and contracts

that establish the rights to remuneration), negotiate fees with users, collect those fees, and

distribute the money collected among the right holders.

With regards to the granting of licenses, the collecting societies use so-called blanket

licenses in order to allow the use of music from their entire catalogue, thus avoiding the

cumbersome situation of having to use individual licenses.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

There are also “coalitions” between different CMOs that offer centralised services with the

objective to faster provide authorisations. This kind of coalitions are called one-stop shops.

In practice, there is still a lot of work to be done.

A controversial issue is the fact that in some legislations, such as in Spain, collective

management of remuneration rights is mandatory, meaning that the CMOs are entitled to

collect the fees that correspond to all of the right holders, whether they are members of

those societies or not.

It is important to stress that the fees of those remunerations are agreed upon by the

collective societies and the users, under the condition that they have to be in accordance

with the principle of equity. This issue has raised some serious problems that have been

taken into court, in order for the judges to decide whether the collective societies' fees were

equitable. In section 4 we comment on some of the most important CJEU rulings regarding

this matter.

Document 7.1 discusses in detail the practical consequences of this obligatory nature, and

tries to clear up what happens with the collected fees corresponding to the non-members

of the collecting societies, what the fees are in each country, how they are calculated, etc.

2.4 Creative Commons and Copyleft

The past few decades have seen the appearance of the works of the Free Software

Foundation (FSF) and Richard Stallman, creator in 1985 of the General Public License

(GPL), meant to distribute computer software programs “permission-free” under one sole

condition: there shall be no obstacles in the circulation of the modified programs in virtue

of a GPL.

Inspired by the aforementioned works, the Creative Commons organisation emerges in

2001, founded by Lawrence Lessig in California. CC offers a total of six different licenses

to right holders, which they can use to give permission to the general public to use and

share the creative work of the author under the terms and conditions they choose

themselves.

The author who decides to use any of the standardised CC licenses should be well informed

and take full responsibility, as the organism is not offering any kind of legal advice to the

author, nor is it responsible for the application of the license.

Regarding the licenses' form, each one is described in three different formats.

First of all, there's the “legal code”, which is the actual license, with various preambles and

articles. Since this is a purely legal document using a type of language the average user is

not accustomed to reading, it could lead to erroneous interpretations and applications.

That is why CC decided to design a set of simple, easy-to-read and easy-to-understand

licenses with symbols and straightforward definitions. This second form of license,

although it is not a license in itself but rather a practical reference to understand the “legal

code”, is called “Commons deed”.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

License

Description

Attribution (by)

All CC licenses require that others who use your work in any way

must give you credit the way you request, but not in a way that

suggests you endorse them or their use. If they want to use your

work without giving you credit or for endorsement purposes, they

must get your permission first.

ShareAlike (sa)

You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify your

work, as long as they distribute any modified work on the same

terms. If they want to distribute modified works under other

terms, they must get your permission first.

NonCommercial

(nc)

You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and (unless you

have chosen NoDerivatives) modify and use your work for any

purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission

first.

NoDerivatives

(nd)

You let others copy, distribute, display and perform only original

copies of your work. If they want to modify your work, they must

get your permission first.

*Source: https://creativecommons.org

The third form or format is called “Digital code”. It is a description of the license that can

be read by computer programs such as search engines. That way, Creative Commons

developed a metadata system, CCREL ("CreativeCommons Rights Expression Language"),

through which it is possible to annotate works with a license facilitating its functionality

and the possibility to do a search per license type.

The general conditions of the transfer through these licenses are their perpetuity, non-

exclusivity, cost-free status, and validity for everybody.

The idea is to expand the possibilities between “all use prohibited” and “all use permitted”,

introducing the intermediate possibilities that can emerge. For example, an author can

create a work and wish to have it distributed as much as possible. They can expressly

permit the work to be copied and redistributed by anyone, but maintaining their

authorship at all times. Or, they can allow for the work to be copied, but not redistributed.

The main questions an author has to ask themselves when choosing a CC license are if they

want to permit a commercial use of their work, or if they want to allow derived works to be

created from it.

Creative Commons licenses do not seek to eliminate copyright, rather they depend on it.

While they are often categorised as part of the Copyleft movement, CC is actually closer to

work, deciding to what extent that work will be protected.

Another myth is that authors using CC licenses are not or do not wish to get paid for their

work – the licenses simply provide more possibilities for creators to decide how and as

what they want to be remunerated. Simply put, if we understand copyright as “all rights

reserved”, Creative Commons would be “some rights reserved”.

While it is true that these licenses have many advantages, such as their user-friendliness,

the author having complete control over their work, and their easy-to-understand graphic

version that makes internalisation easy, in practice a few incompatibility issues and other

problems arise.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

In fact, on many occasions their legal validity has been challenged, even though the law

has endorsed it, as there could be legal insecurity due to the multiple versions ad countries

– controlling them is quite difficult, as they contain undetermined elements.

Another problem with this kind of licenses has to do with their possible modifications. In

the clause “Termination”, the following is stipulated:

“Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop

distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not

serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be,

granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and

effect”

Therefore, a modification of a license or a withdrawal of a work does not affect the

conditions and uses stipulated in the initial license.

Yet another problem in terms of management, which has already been treated in court, is

their incompatibility with collective management of remuneration rights by collecting

societies. Bear in mind that these remuneration rights grant their holders the right to

perceive a compensation for the use of their work or performance in certain cases

established by law. What happens in many cases is that copyrights and neighbouring rights

are confused, as well as exclusive rights and remuneration rights, and CC licenses and

Copyleft, which has already led to numerous litigations.

There are background music providers licensed exclusively under CC licenses who claim

not having to pay anything to any collecting society. This is false, as CC licenses apply only

to authors, not to performers or phonogram producers, which means that remuneration

rights corresponding to the latter two groups of right holders do have to be paid to the

respective collecting societies.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

3. Legislation

decrees applied by judges who are not specialised in the field, giving way to unexpected

results or unintended consequences. This complexity increases in the realm of the

European Union, since there are as many jurisdictions as there are Member States.

In this chapter, we summarise, as an indication, the most relevant international legislation

in Intellectual Property (IP), related to audio branding in particular. We will also give a

quick overview of local legislations, focussing on those that are relevant exceptions to the

common rule.

3.1 International Treaties

An international treaty is an agreement between at least two subjects of International Law

and is governed by International Law, which can consist of one or several related legal

instruments. Such agreements are most commonly made between nations, although in

some cases they are made between nations and international organisations, such as WIPO

(World Intellectual Property Organisation), UNESCO (United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ILO (International Labour Organisation).

Treaties establish generally applicable rules that are legally superior to the signing

countries internal laws.

Below we name the six most important treaties in force related to IP, all of which are

administered by WIPO. As of today, all of them are signed by the 28 members of the

European Union, except for the Rome Convention (not signed by Malta) and the Geneva

Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized

Duplication of their Phonograms, also known as the Phonograms Convention (not signed

by Belgium, Ireland, Malta, Poland and Portugal).

Treaty

Summary

Countries

Berne Convention (1886)

Berne Convention for the Protection of

Literary and Artistic Works

Applicability

Country of origin

Fair use

All

Rome Convention (1961)

International Convention for the

Protection of Performers, Producers of

Phonograms and Broadcasting

Organizations

Performers

Producers of phonograms

Broadcasting organizations

Limitations and exceptions

Duration

All except Malta

Phonograms Convention

(1971)

Convention for the Protection of Producers

of Phonograms Against Unauthorized

Duplication of Their Phonograms

Making of duplicates

Importation

Distribution

All except

Belgium, Ireland,

Malta, Poland and

Portugal

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

TRIPS (1994)

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights

Computer programs

Databases

Rental right

Performers and producers

All

WCT (1996)

WIPO Copyright Treaty

Computer programs

Databases

Authors (Right of distribution, Right of

rental, Right of communication to the public)

Limitations and exceptions

Duration

All

WPPT (1996)

WIPO Performances and Phonograms

Treaty

Performers and producers (Right of

reproduction, Right of distribution, Right of

rental, Right of making available)

Live performances

Moral rights

Limitations and exceptions

All

3.2 Directives

The next level of legal instruments the European institutions have at their disposal to apply

EU policy are the directives. A Directive is a flexible tool used mainly to harmonise national

legislations. In order for it to be effective, it should be transposed to each country's internal

law in the time stipulated in the Directive.

Directives are only binding on Member States regarding the results to be achieved, but they

are free to choose the form and methods to apply them. That is to say, that the

transposition does not have to be done literally. This is why, in spite of the intention to

harmonise, there still are divergences in each country's own laws and in the interpretation

thereof.

There are numerous directives in the field of IP. Below we will summarise the ones that

have the biggest impact on the ABC_DJ project.

Directive

Entry into force

Database Directive

Directive No. 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 11 March

1996 on the legal protection of databases

January 1, 1998

E-Commerce Directive

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000

on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic

commerce, in the Internal Market

July 17, 2000

June 22, 2001

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

Directive No. 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

Enforcement Directive

Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April

2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights

May 20, 2004

Rental Directive

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

January 16, 2007

Computer Programs Directive

Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April

2009 on the legal protection of computer programs

May 25, 2009

Term Directive

Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27

September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of

October 31, 2011

Orphan Works Directive

Directive No. 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25

October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works

October 26, 2012

Collective Rights Management Directive

Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February

2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial

licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market

March 20, 2014

Database Directive

This Directive introduces the definition of databases (among which are the compilation of

musical works) and confers legal protection on them, whether they be analog or digital. It

creates a new, exclusive and distinctive right for the producers of such databases, valid for

15 years, to protect their investment of time, money and effort, regardless of the question

whether the database is in itself innovative (“non-original” databases). The Directive also

harmonises the copyright laws applicable to the structure and disposition of the “original”

databases' content. The rights that are introduced here are independent from any

individuals.

This Directive affects the ABC_DJ project in that a database is generated that includes the

selection and storage of musical works in a systematic fashion.

E-Commerce Directive

The Electronic Commerce Directive sets up an Internal Market framework for electronic

commerce, in order to provide legal certainty for business and consumers alike. It

establishes harmonised rules on issues such as the transparency and information

requirements for online service providers, commercial communications, electronic

contracts and limitations of liability of intermediary service providers. In this regard, the

Directive frees them from liability for "mere conduit”, or passive transmission; "caching",

or temporary storage necessary for said transmission; and hosting of information for third

parties. It also establishes the principle that digital service providers are only subject to the

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

regulations of the EU country where their registered office is, and not of the country where

their servers, email addresses or mailboxes are located.

This Directive, while not directly related to IP, is relevant to an audio branding service

provider that provides hosting and online transmission of musical works.

This Directive adapts copyright and neighbouring right legislation, in order to reflect

technological developments, and to incorporate the main international obligations

deriving from copyright and neighbouring right treaties adopted within the WIPO

framework in December 1996 (the WCT and WPPT) in Community legislation, as well as

to harmonise certain aspects, such as exceptions and limitations to copyright.

The Directive defines the exclusive rights granted to authors and holders of the

neighbouring rights we explained in Chapter 2: the right of reproduction, the right of

communication to the public and the making available right, and that of authors to allow

or prohibit any type of public distribution through sale or other means (the exhaustion

doctrine). It also lists the exceptions Member States are allowed to apply to copyright and

neighbouring rights, of which only one is obligatory: transitional or accessory copying as

part of a network of legal content transmissions. Whether the other limitations are applied

to national legislations is at the discretion of each territory.

Lastly, this Directive prohibits bypassing of any anti-copy protection system, as well as the

distribution of tools and technology that enable said bypassing.

This Directive is one of the most important ones for audio branding service providers and

clients, as it is the one that defines the applicable rights in the music field in the whole of

Europe, their exceptions, and who the right holders are.

Enforcement Directive

The Directive requires all Member States to apply effective, dissuasive and proportionate

measures and penalties against those engaged in counterfeiting and piracy.

While it is not directly related to the ABC_DJ project's modus operandi, this Directive

could be relevant in case of wrongful use by an audio branding service client.

Rental Directive

This Directive harmonises the legal situation relating to rental and lending rights as well

as certain neighbouring rights. It establishes the minimum rights Member States have to

grant performing artists and phonogram producers (neighbouring rights), based on the

regulations of the Rome Convention, such as the exclusive right to authorise radio

distribution and public communication of their performances, which furthermore comes

with the right to remuneration.

In spite of its name, the rental part is the least relevant to the ABC_DJ project. The part

about the right to remuneration for public communication, on the other hand, is of

enormous importance, seeing as it implies that clients of background music services have

to pay to the artists and labels when they publicly communicate songs, either directly, or

through a CMO.

Computer Programs Directive

The objective of this Directive is to harmonise Member States' legislations in relation to

the protection of computer software programs, in order to create a legal environment that

warrants a certain level of protection against unauthorised reproduction. It offers

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

computer programs protection that is similar to that of artistic works, and grants their

creators rights over their programs and designs.

If any computer programs are developed as part of of the ABC_DJ project, this Directive

has to be taken into account.

Term Directive

This Directive extends the term of protection for performing artists and phonogram

producers from 50 to 70 years after publication or public communication of the recording,

bringing it more in line with the protection for authors (70 years after their demise), and

also determines the calculation of the protection term from musical compositions with

lyrics in the case that the lyric writer and the songwriter are different individuals. It also

contains measures to help performers, such as the “use it or lose it” clause, which allows

artists to get their rights back if the producer does not market the recording during the

extended period, and an additional remuneration from the phonogram producer to the

artist, managed through the corresponding CMO, during the 20-year extension period.

For the ABC_DJ project, its relevance lies in the power to determine if the works it uses

are protected or if they have come into the public domain.

Orphan Works Directive

This Directive sets out common rules on the digitisation and online display of so-called

orphan works, which are works that are still protected by copyright but whose authors or

other right holders are not known or cannot be located or contacted to obtain copyright

permissions.

Its application concerns only public institutions like museums, libraries, education centres

and archives.

Collective Rights Management Directive

The objective of this Directive is to make sure the right holders have a voice in the

management of their rights and to guarantee a better functioning of the CMOs, as well as

improving their transparency and supervision. The new rules also facilitate the concession

of multi-territorial licenses of musical works for their online use.

The Directive also introduces a new definition that allows private commercial operators

such as trading companies to become copyright managers as an “independent

management entity”, which could be of enormous relevance to the ABC_DJ project, as we

will explain in Chapter 6.

3.3 National Law

3.3.1 General Overview

Each of the 28 countries of the European Union has its own Intellectual Property law,

different from the others. Below we will list the current laws in each territory, with a

reference to the year of its most recent version.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

Country

IP Law

Version

AUSTRIA

Federal Law on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works and

Related Rights (Copyright Act) (as amended up to Federal Law

Gazette (BGBl) I No. 99/2015)

2015

BELGIUM

Law of April 19, 2014, inserting Book XI 'Intellectual Property' to the

Code of Economic Law, and specific provisions to the Book XI in

Books I, XV and XVII of the Code

2014

BULGARIA

Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (as amended in 2011)

2011

CROATIA

80/2011, 141/2013 & 127/2014)

2014

CYPRUS

2007

CZECH REPUBLIC

Consolidated Version of Act No. 121/2000 Coll., on Copyright and

Rights Related to Copyright and on Amendment to Certain Acts (the

61/2006 Coll. and Act No. 216/2006 Coll.)

2006

DENMARK

The Consolidated Act on Copyright (Consolidate Act No. 1144 of

October 23, 2014)

2014

ESTONIA

2014

FINLAND

30, 2010)

2010

FRANCE

Intellectual Property Code (consolidated version of February 23,

2015)

2015

GERMANY

Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act, as amended up

to Act of April 4, 2016)

2016

GREECE

Law No. 2121/1993 on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural

Matters (as amended up to Law No. 4281/2014)

2014

HUNGARY

Act No. LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright (consolidated text as of

January 1, 2007)

2007

IRELAND

2000

SPAIN

Law No. 21/2014 of November 4, 2014, amending the Consolidated

Text of the Law on Intellectual Property, approved by Royal

Legislative Decree No. 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and Law No. 1/2000

of January 7, 2000, on Civil Procedure

2015

ITALY

Law No. 633 of April 22, 1941, for the Protection of Copyright and

Neighbouring Rights (as amended up to Decree-law No. 64 of April

30, 2010)

2010

LATVIA

2014

LITHUANIA

Law on Copyright and Related Rights No. VIII-1185 of May 18, 1999

(as amended on October 7, 2014 – by Law No. XII-1183)

2014

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

LUXEMBOURG

Law of April 18, 2004, amending 1) Law of April 18, 2001 on

July 20, 1992, amending the Patent System

2004

MALTA

of 2011

2011

NETHERLANDS

Act of September 23, 1912, containing New Regulation for Copyright

(Copyright Act 1912, as amended up to July 1, 2015)

2015

POLAND

Act No. 83 of February 4, 1994, on Copyright and Neighbouring

Rights (as amended up to May 20, 2016)

2016

PORTUGAL

Code of Copyright and Related Rights (as last amended by Law No.

16/2008 of April 1, 2008)

2008

ROMANIA

Law No. 8 of March 14, 1996 on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights

2006

SLOVAKIA

Act No. 185/2015 Coll. on Copyright and Related Rights (as

amended by Act No. 125/2016 Coll.)

2016

SLOVENIA

on December 15, 2006

2006

SWEDEN

The Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (1960:729)

2011

UNITED

KINGDOM

2014

As we explained previously, despite the extensive harmonisation of the European IP laws,

given the relative liberty Member States enjoy to apply the guidelines established in the

directives, there are still some divergences between national legislations.

For example, the legal continental European tradition and Common Law (Anglo-Saxon

legislation) have different views on copyright: Great Britain and Ireland apply the “fair use”

or “fair dealing” doctrine, which allows limited use of protected works without the author's

permission. The rest of the European countries, on the other hand, have in their

legislations a specific list of exceptions and limitations to the application of copyright, the

determination of which has to come after the Berne three-step test (to allow the

reproduction of works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not

conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably harm the

legitimate interests of the author), generally for the use in broadcasting, investigation,

education, etc. For example, until recently the UK did not contemplate the exception of

private copying, and when it introduced it, it did so without a corresponding remuneration,

unlike most of the other Member States. Portugal is the only territory that has a “fair use”

policy for scientific or humanitarian objectives, but only covering out-of-commerce works.

Another of the main differences between the two legal traditions is the concept of

authorship. In the UK, authorship of a work can be possessed by a legal person, while in

the continental legislations the author can only be a natural person, and the works made

by companies (music and audiovisual recordings and so on) come with neighbouring rights

that are slightly different from copyright, which, for example, does not contemplate moral

rights. Exception to this are, for instance, the Greek and Dutch legislations, where

anonymous works published in name of the real author by a company, the latter would be

the holder of the copyright.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

In the same line, in the UK and Ireland authorship of a musical work created by an

employee is automatically assigned to their employer. In most of the EU countries, the

author would be the employee. There is a particular case in Finland in which, if after the

demise of an author their work is used against cultural interest, the Ministry of Culture can

prohibit its use. Although this clause has been used only once in history, in 1962, it is the

only case in which a government can exercise copyright.

With regard to the subject that can be protected, some countries consider all sound

recordings as “works”, as is the case of Denmark and the UK, while the other countries do

not, only granting them neighbouring rights. In the case of Denmark, its legislation even

protects tones, chords and other sounds (e.g. drum rhythms), and even field recordings

and recordings of daily life. Germany protects non-musical sounds only if they are made

by a person.

It is not required in any EU country, following the guidelines set out in the Berne

Convention, to register a work in order to give evidence to its authorship or to obtain rights

protection. In some countries, such as Spain, Italy and Portugal, voluntary public copyright

registers exist, both free and paid, and, even though they are not obligatory, the

information stored in said registers can be binding in a lawsuit, in absence of further

evidence to determine a work's authorship. In some territories, apart from these registers,

there is a legal obligation to deposit copies of published works in the national libraries, as

is the case with Spain and Portugal, among others.

In some countries copyrights are non-transferable, as is the case with the Czech Republic,

where the author of a work is the only one who can bring a lawsuit against infractions,

while in most countries the transfer of patrimonial rights to third parties via a written

contract is permitted. What should and should not be in such a contract varies from

territory to territory, although generally the license term and the agreed-upon

remuneration for each exploitation form must be specified. The French and Belgian

legislations are the most protective of the author in that respect, as the law is always

interpreted in their favour. For example, Belgian law does not allow the inclusion of

exploitation forms that are unknown at the time of signing, contrary to other countries. In

France, authors have the right of withdrawal, even after the work has been published. In

this case, the author must compensate the licensee, and the latter has priority to be able to

obtain the rights again, should the author decide to publish the work again.

The above is only valid for transmission contracts between the author of a work and its

exploiting parties. However, no European legislation contains any clauses that regulate the

contracts between performers and phonogram producers, only certain principles guide

this kind of contracts. All legislations, on the other hand, grant rights to performing artists.

Many of them even give them moral rights in addition to patrimonial rights.

In spite of these particularities, there are no substantial differences in national legislations

that could affect an audio branding service operating on a European level, seeing as the

rights and the right holders are the same in all of the EU territory. In any case, the

differences lie in their practical application, i.e. their management. Some legislations made

collective management of some rights mandatory. For example, in Spain, remuneration

rights of performing artists and phonogram producers for public communication and

private copying must be managed through CMOs. In the Czech Republic, the right to

retransmission is the only right to be managed collectively. In Czech legislation, there is

another exception: there is no equitable remuneration right for public communication or

broadcasting for artists and phonogram producers, but in practice the CMO Intergram

administers the exclusive right to public communication for artists.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

Document 7.1 explains how the licensing of works and the collective management of

copyrights and neighbouring rights work, as well as the implications thereof for the

ABC_DJ project.

3.3.2 European Non-EU Members

An audio branding service provider who wants to operate in Europe should also consider

the countries that are not part of the EU at present, such as Switzerland, Norway, Iceland,

the micro states, and some of the Balkan states (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo,

Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey). The first two are the most relevant, given their

importance and music consumption.

Norway is not a member of the EU, but it is part of the European Economic Area (EEA)

and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and therefore takes part in several of

the EU programs, institutions and activities, and adopts about 20% of its legal acts. In the

field of Intellectual Property the country has adopted some directives, such as the one

about Copyright, and is a co-signer of the most important international treaties, so its laws

in this field are governed by the same rules as the EU.

Switzerland is not a member of the EU nor the EEA, but is part of the EFTA. The country

signed several treaties with the EU, so a large part of EU legislation also applies in its

territory. Like Norway it co-signed the main international treaties, and its IP laws are

similar to the other European countries.

3.3.3 Enforcement

As we already mentioned, there is no international copyright law; there are just national

laws that apply within each country's borders. However, over the course of the 19th century

the first international tools appeared with the aim to protect authors' works outside of the

country where they were created.

In each specific case the competent jurisdiction and applicable law is determined. Example

of this are the 1980 Rome Convention, the Brussels Convention the Lugano Convention,

however they do not cover questions about jurisdiction and applicable law for lawsuits

related to copyright. This is because of the intangible nature of copyright and the possibility

to use the work at any time and place. This issue has been resolved over the course of time

via the Berne Convention and the general rules about jurisdiction and applicable law.

Nevertheless, with the rise of internet these problems have been growing due to, among

other factors, the speed with which works are distributed online. This leaves us with a

legislation that cannot with complete efficiency resolve the applicable law and relevant

jurisdiction in the protection of copyrights on internet. Still, over time the CJEU has

established the standard in these cases through its interpretations.

Let us first analyse which would be the applicable law in a hypothetical case of private

international law.

The Berne Convention establishes the principle of national treatment and sets a conflict-

of-law rule for the determination of the applicable law. Thus, in accordance with its article

5.1, each state has to warrant the same rights to foreign authors as they do to national

authors.

Article 5.2 contemplates the application of the law of the Member State where protection

is claimed. Over the years, the conclusion was reached that this conflict-of-law rule does

not go hand in hand with lex loci, i.e. independent of the chosen court of justice, the

applicable law can be from a foreign country. Therefore, one can claim protection for the

Netherlands, in accordance with Dutch law, residing in the United States, but in practice

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

the jurisdiction and the applicable law usually coincide, due to the costs of translation,

lawyer fees and other costs this would carry.

There is a Council Regulation that deals with jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial matters.

But since it does not treat copyright in particular, we must turn to its rule of general and

special jurisdiction.

The general rule grants competence to the home country or country of residence of the

defendant. However, the parties can choose a different court of justice, explicitly or

implicitly, if the defendant appears in the court of justice chosen by the plaintiff. And in

the case, that there are related lawsuits in different courts of justice, i.e. which are about

the same question, a sole court of justice can be chosen.

There are special jurisdiction rules for contracts and offences. It is up to the plaintiff to

choose between general and special jurisdiction. With respect to contracts, competence

lies with the courts of the country where the main obligation has been or has to be complied

with. In the case of offences, it’s the courts where the damage has been or will be done.

As a consequence of this special jurisdiction rule, if the offence takes place on the internet,

the following courts of justice could be competent:

1. The country where the server is located;

2. The country of residence of the individual transmitting the illegal content;

3. Each and every one of the countries from where people have access to and download

the work in question, i.e. all receiving countries of the work;

4. The country of residence of the author/right holder/plaintiff where the damage was

caused.

The question rises if these courts of justice have jurisdiction to know all the offences

committed in different countries. The answer would be that only the court of justice of the

country of residence of the defendant is competent to know the case in its totality – the

rest of the courts would only know about the damages caused in their territories.

It is clearly difficult for a right holder to protect their rights in international lawsuits. There

are several projects to resolve these questions, parting from an international perspective.

This is the only possible way to resolve conflicts arising from unauthorised use of

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

4. Case Law

In any field or issue related to Law, bearing in mind legislation is as important as the

application and interpretation thereof by the courts.

In this chapter, we try to take a closer look at the CJEU's jurisprudence and that of some

national courts about certain rights, concepts and issues that have generated a variety and

variation of opinions over the years. Particularly in the last decade, with the rise of online

businesses, and the emergence of Creative Commons licenses. But one topic that has

caused controversy and a wide range of opinions and jurisprudence is the concept of public

communication and what is understood as such.

We will now point out some rulings about the aforementioned subjects.

4.1 CJEU Judgements

Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) vs. Marco Del Corso (15 March 2012)

In this lawsuit, the question was raised if the music playing in a dental practice waiting

room constituted or not an act of public communication.

The court found that the patients of a dental practice represent a limited number of

individuals, seeing as the total amount of people simultaneously present in the waiting

room is very small. The court also affirmed that the individuals attending a dental practice

do not do so seeking to hear music and that, if they do hear music, it is by chance, without

them choosing to.

In conclusion, it is understood that these are in fact scenarios with very little financial

transcendence due to the insignificant size of the group of individuals the possible

communication would be meant for, and the random capture of listeners.

With this sentence, the CJEU establishes certain criteria when it comes to analyse if an act

constitutes public communication:

 A broadcast to a number of people too small or insignificant, taken into account

cumulatively, i.e. considering the individuals that have access to the same work

simultaneously and successively, cannot be considered communication to the

public.

 If the receiver of the communication is an audience caught by chance, there is no

communication to the public.

The PPL vs. Ireland and Attorney General Case (15 March 2012)

The Phonographic Performance Limited (the Irish performance rights organisation) asked

for a ruling to clarify whether Ireland was in violation of European law when it established

a law that exempted hotels from paying remuneration for their broadcasts.

The court considered that the broadcasting of works is a supplementary service that has

an impact on the hotel's category, and as a consequence on the room price. Hence there is

a profit-making nature. Therefore the court reaches the conclusion that communication to

the public exists.

Reha Training vs. GEMA (31 May 2016)

Lawsuit in Germany between the CMO GEMA and rehabilitation centre Reha Training,

which offers post-surgery treatment to accident victims. Reha Training have television sets

in their waiting rooms and exercise room, on which patients have access to the

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

transmissions broadcast on these devices. GEMA sued the rehabilitation centre arguing

that they were communicating works from its repertoire without permission and, after

claiming the proper amounts of money, did not receive any answer from the centre.

The German court remitted the question to the CJEU, with the purpose of clarifying if that

act of distribution constitutes a communication to the public. In this case, the CJEU

affirmed that the distribution of television broadcasts installed by the rehabilitation centre

in their buildings is indeed an act of public communication.

At present, the German court has to resolve the main lawsuit.

SENA vs. NOS (6 February 2003)

Lawsuit between Dutch neighbouring rights organisation SENA and the Dutch Broadcast

Foundation (NOS) about the determination of the equitable remuneration paid to

performing artists and phonogram producers for the distribution of sound recordings by

radio and television stations.

The court points out that equitable remuneration is an instrument to achieve a balance

between the performing artists' and phonogram producers' interests on the one hand, and

the interests of the user broadcasting the sound recording. That is to say that, when

applying this concept of equitable remuneration, Member States have to achieve that the

compensation for the distribution of a sound recording be equitable, corresponding to the

signing parties of the agreement about the scope of said compensation and, in their

absence, to the State.

As possible criteria to come to that equity, the court names: the amount of hours the sound

recordings are transmitted; the fees established by contract with regard to performance

and broadcasting rights; the fees of public radio broadcasting organisms in the

neighbouring territories of the Member State in question; the audience ratings; and the

amounts paid by commercial radio stations.

The SENA doctrine was later confirmed by the Lagardère ruling, where the court

established the equity of the value set to the use of the work as a parameter of control.

OSA vs. Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně (27 February 2014)

In its ruling the CJEU responded to a prejudicial issue raised by a Czech court in the

framework of a lawsuit between the Czech collective rights society OSA and a thermal spa.

In this procedure, OSA claimed a financial compensation for the distribution of works from

its repertoire by the spa via the TV and radio devices installed in its rooms for its patients'

use.

Apart from confirming that these distributions are acts of public communication, the CJEU

analysed if a Member State can allow a monopoly position in the copyrights collection

market, preventing a user from that State from accessing the services offered by collecting

societies from other Member States. It also resolved the question of the impossibility to

invoke a Directive in a lawsuit between private persons, but that question is not relevant

for the matter at hand.

Regarding the second question, the CJEU decided that the dispositions of EU law

regarding the free providing of services did “not [preclude] national legislation [...], which

reserves the exercise of collective management of copyright in respect of certain protected

works in the territory of the Member State concerned to a single copyright collecting

society and thereby prevents users of such works [...] from benefiting from the services

provided by another collecting society established in another Member State”. However, it

makes an important point as, according to guidelines of the Treaty on the Functioning of

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

the European Union (TFEU), in particular article 102 thereof, must be interpreted in the

sense that “the fact that this first CMO imposes fees that are notably higher than those

applied in other Member States and charges excessive prices with no reasonable relation

to the market value of the service provided constitute evidence of abuse of a dominant

position.”

4.2 National Case Law

Spain

One of the first rulings that include Creative Commons licenses in Spain was by a

Commercial court on 17 February 2006, dismissing a claim by the Spanish Society of

Authors and Publishers (SGAE) against the proprietor of Disco Bar Metropol in the city of

Badajoz. SGAE based its claim on the presumption that most of the music played is

managed by the organisation, and that if music is being played, it is presumably works

managed by SGAE.

The court ruled that with these licenses “the author holds some moral and financial rights

over their creation, and as such they can manage them as they see fit, allowing free use or

allowing it partially.” The court believes that the defendant creates and accesses numerous

musical works not managed by SGAE, and that the use of said works is permitted by the

authors by means of CC licenses.

With this ruling it is proven that SGAE does not manage all music and that there are

musical works managed by other means, such as CC licenses.

Belgium

Ruling in Belgium regarding Creative Commons licenses in 2010. In a promotional video,

the organisers of a festival used a work subject to a CC license for PR purposes. Upon

hearing the advertisement, the plaintiffs contacted the festival organisers in order to try to

come to an agreement, which did not happen.

The defendants wanted to pay a compensation in accordance to the fees established by

Belgian collecting society Sabam, approximately 1,500€. However, the plaintiffs asked for

a much higher figure, 10,380€, for the breach of the CC license and the copyright

infringement.

The court established that there had to be either a compensation for the uses, or a

compensation for each violation of the conditions stipulated in the license. The court

finally opted for the latter.

The Netherlands

Lawsuit in the Netherlands related to the validity of Creative Commons licenses.

Photographer Adam Curry published photos he made on www.flickr.com using an

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons license. A Dutch gossip

magazine reproduced his photos in an article about Curry's children, without previous

permission. The magazine argued that the link to the CC license was not clear, and that it

was misled by the claim “This photo is public”, without investigating its reach.

The Dutch court's ruling confirmed that the conditions of a CC license automatically apply

to the content it licenses, and that users of the content are bound to observe these

conditions, even without having explicitly accepted or known the conditions of the license.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

5. Future Perspectives

5.1 Digital Single Market

When in 2014 the European Parliament (EP) and European Commission (EC) turns were

renewed, new president Jean-Claude Juncker announced that one of his first priorities was

the implementation of the Digital Single Market (DSM), of which the purpose is to

guarantee the free circulation of goods, persons, services and capital, so that citizens and

businesses in the EU can easily and equally access goods and services online whichever

their nationality or place of residence, and thus create online opportunities and improve

Europe's position as world leader in the digital economy.

The DSM strategy, approved on 6 May 2015, comprised of 16 initiatives, part of a roadmap

terminating by the end of 2016, featuring three big blocks of work: to improve consumers'

and businesses' access to digital goods and services in the whole of Europe; to create the

proper conditions for digital networks and services to thrive; and to maximise the growing

potential of the European digital economy. With regard to the subject matter at hand, the

most relevant measure on said roadmap is that of producing legislative proposals in order

to reform copyright system. Also relevant are the simplification rules for cross-border

exchanges and the simplification of the VAT system in order to reduce the administrative

workload of the businesses operating in several different territories.

The first batch of measures were published in December 2015, with a regulation proposal

to guarantee cross-border portability and that, when a consumer subscribed to online film,

music or e-book services travels into another EU country, they can access the content as if

they were at home. The second batch was published in September 2016, with proposals for,

among others, a new Directive regarding copyright in the DSM.

One of the main objectives of the Directive proposal is to facilitate cross-border access to

content, particularly for uses for which the clearance of rights is complex, and to achieve

it, measures are stipulated to simplify the procedures for the concession of licenses and

settlement of rights. Article 4 introduces an exception to permit digital use of works for

educational purposes. Article 7 regulates the digitalisation and supply of out-of-print

works by cultural patrimony institutions. Article 10 establishes a negotiation mechanism

to facilitate the availability of audiovisual works on video on-demand platforms. Article 11

introduces a new right for newspaper and magazine publishers for the online use of their

publications.

Another essential point of the Directive proposal is the fair remuneration of the right

holders, and in that sense it sets out measures to improve the position of the right holders

to negotiate and be remunerated for the exploitation of their content by online services

that store and offer access to large amounts of content uploaded by the users themselves

(such as YouTube and SoundCloud, to mention some examples). Article 13 stipulates that

these platforms will be required to guarantee the functioning of the agreements reached

with the right holders, with measures such as effective content recognition technologies.

Lastly, in order to strengthen the negotiating power of authors and performers and

guarantee their fair remuneration, the Directive proposal includes measures to improve

transparency and the contractual relations between them and those who they transfer their

rights to. Article 14 introduces an obligation of transparency and information reporting of

the exploitation of the works by phonogram producers and publishers towards the authors

and performers who have transferred their rights to them. Article 15 stipulates that the

authors and performers have the right to claim an additional remuneration in the cases

where they originally agreed upon compensation was disproportionately low.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

The Directive proposal modifies some of the already existing directives, and the Member

States have 12 months to transpose it once it has been approved. At the time of this writing

the exact date the Directive will enter into force is unknown, seeing as it has to be debated

first in Parliament and then ratified by the Member States.

Though none of the proposal's concrete measures directly affects the audio branding

processes, and therefore the ABC_DJ project, the basic issues it deals with are relevant.

Facilitating cross-border distribution of cultural content; clarifying the responsibilities of

the intermediaries who provide them; and improving transparency towards creators, and

their remuneration; are all objectives the project should share.

5.2 Blockchain

A blockchain is a distributed database that is an ever-growing list of records, protected

against any manipulation or revision. A blockchain consists of a series of blocks that hold

batches of valid transactions. Each block includes a cryptographic summary, or hash, of

the previous block, connecting both. The blocks, linked like that, then form a chain. The

blockchain format was invented for the bitcoin, as a solution to the problem of having a

secure and at the same time widely distributed database.

Each time a new block is created it is immediately stored in all hardware containing the

database. This update takes place every ten minutes. As this process takes place, the

blockchain is encrypted through a set of passwords instantly generated by thousands of

these computers. In order to modify a given block, we would need to have open access to

thousands of computers that were involved in creating the encryption key back when the

block was created. This is where the system´s security lies. A block cannot be hacked,

unless one knows and can effectively access thousands of computers all over the world;

hence, a centralized attack is not possible.

The design of the blockchain for cryptocurrency served as inspiration for other

applications, such as contracts and organisations. A so-called smart contract is a computer

protocol executed by all the nodes of a blockchain network in a decentralised way.

Consequently, two or more parties could negotiate a remuneration agreement in a protocol

of this kind, and said remuneration would go to the corresponding (or third) parties, in

accordance with the conditions stipulated in that contract. A Decentralised Autonomous

Organisation (DAO) is an organisation that runs through rules encoded as smart contracts.

The use of blockchain-based applications could be a solution to the transparency and fair

remuneration of right holders in the music industry. At present a new format is in the

making for the distribution of music that would not only hold the audio but also the

metadata regarding a song (authors, performers, producers, publishers, etc.). That way it

would be much easier to monitor the use of works, without depending on costly and

inaccurate audience research systems or the reliability of the usage reports provided by the

users themselves. The calculation and distribution of royalties would be considerably

simplified as well.

Moreover, these formats could be combined with a blockchain-based digital currency

system that would guarantee that all rights for uses in any part of the world be paid to their

legitimate owners securely, accurately, transparently and immediately. In digital uses,

which are especially atomised, any solution that allows for micro payments would mean a

great advance, especially for non-mainstream creators and independent phonogram

producers and publishers.

Blockchain has been labelled by some as the “money Internet”, since it would provide users

with the ability to carry out currency transactions, whilst bypassing supervision by

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

financial entities. Moreover, transactions would be dealt with safely and anonymously

through the MVB protocol (Minimum Viable Blockchain).

This is the reason why, with banking intermediaries effectively forgone, so would be

verification and foreign currency exchange movement procedures that corporations

typically take days, weeks or months to complete, as is the case with, e.g., royalty payments.

In addition, transactions would be carried out in a public and transparent way. Such an

important breakthrough, would certainly translate as a great incentive for artists and

authors that would benefit from managing and modifying their contracts and commercial

exploitation themselves.

There are numerous companies working on the development of applications, intended for

the music industry, based on blockchain. Companies such as www.ujomusic.com or

www.revelator.com are researching ways in which to use blockchain to provide services

currently rendered by music aggregators. Most of them use as their main reference the API

created by www.colu.com.

All these companies are building their platforms on open source software and digital

currency.

The legal consequences of this type of technologies are as of yet unknown. The EU has not

approved any specific legislation related to cryptocurrency, and the legal situation varies

considerably from one country to another. While some of the Member States explicitly

allow its use and trade, others prohibit or restrict them, and in many countries there is no

definition whatsoever.

It is also true that blockchain is setting high expectations, and thus may face many

challenges and restrictions on its path towards effectively adapting to different business

models. On one hand, in order to keep up with database maintenance, massive electric

power consumption is to be expected. On the other, cryptographic currency is already

facing political and legal challenges in many countries.

It also remains to be seen whether blockchain could offer a safe alternative for dealing with

management organizations obsolete.

The repercussions of a smart contract that allows for the electronic coupling of an

automated legal consequence to a contract are still being contemplated in our regulations.

The legal status of DAOs is not regulated yet either, although the closest one would be a

general partnership, and that would imply that partners have unlimited responsibility in

the case of possible debts, and that they could be subject to civil actions. In Europe,

contracts and companies are regulated by Commercial Law, which we will not analyse in

this report due to its complexity, but we put it forward here so that it can be taken into

account in case there is a wish to further explore the subject.

5.3 New Models

Until recently, license agreements by platforms like Spotify were personal and did not

authorise its commercial use. That is to say that, although in practice commercial

establishments are using such services to liven up their venues, this use could be indictable.

Since a few months ago, Spotify Business offers background music services for public

spaces to businesses for a monthly fee, at present only available in Sweden, Norway and

Finland. Based on consumer data from their over 100 million users worldwide, the

Swedish company promises their clients a selection of the most popular music in their area.

Clients can create and control playlists for each location from one single dashboard, even

via phone. The playlists can be sequenced to find the right mood for each moment of the

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

day, and can be shared with consumers. The service offers three different fees, for small

businesses, larger ones, and international brands.

For the rest of the world they are offering Soundtrack Business, which is more similar to

the traditional background music services in the sense that they are offering a selection of

playlists curated by Spotify. The license covers commercial uses by the clients in their

public spaces, with a single monthly fee.

Clients located in the EU, in any case, must keep paying the fees of the collecting societies

for the public communication of the works transmitted through these services.

The novelty of this model is that, unlike the other background music service providers,

Spotify already has the licenses from the right holders from virtually everywhere; a

database holding millions of songs, from the greatest hits to the most underground ones;

and detailed consumption statistics. Furthermore, as the most used digital music

streaming service in Europe, the potential clients likely already know the brand and are

even likely to have already used the service for personal use. Should the Spotify Business

service be implemented in the rest of Europe, it could become the main competitor in the

field of background music for public spaces.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

6. Recommendations

Revise the current laws and recent case law

The revision date for the laws included in this report is September 2016. The first

recommendation for audio branding service providers looking to establish themselves in the

EU would be to examine the Directives published since then to see if there is any new one

that affects their project, and if so, consult its transposition deadline. This can be done on

the website of the European Commission or the WIPO, both listed in the References.

The most recent approved Directive was the one about Collective Management in 2014, the

transposition deadline was in April 2016, and practically all national legislations have

incorporated it in their legal framework. The Directive proposal for copyright in the DSM,

published in 2016, should be approved in 2017, and the Member States would have one year

to transpose it.

It is not normal for countries to establish measures of their own that stray too far from their

neighbours' usual rules, as they could even face sanctions if they breach certain regulations

stipulated in the Directives. But occasionally there are some that set themselves apart with

an unusual proposal. These cases are usually taken to the CJEU by right holders or, more

commonly, CMOs, in order to clarify their interpretation. It would be useful to consult the

most recent rulings related to IP before starting to provide the service. This can be done on

the Curia or vLex websites, which are listed in the References.

Propose a revision of the collective management Directive

Any commercial application ABC_DJ develops to provide clients with musical content

should include the licenses of the three right holder groups described in Chapter 2: authors,

artists and phonogram producers. As we explained, in most of the cases, rights management

occurs through CMOs. Each EU Member State has different organisations for the

management of the different types of rights (for example, one for Mechanical Reproduction

and another one for Public Communication). In practice, this means that an audio branding

service provider will have to sign contracts with dozens of collecting societies throughout

Europe.

Deliverable 7.2 analyses the licensing of works and recordings by the collecting societies and

individual right holders in detail, and offers recommendations on how to implement cross-

border licensing measures in practice. Here we will limit ourselves to recommendations

about possible changes in the existing legislation.

In Europe, it is highly complicated to force legislative changes in the field of IP. Any

regulation proposal takes years of impact assessment, meetings with stakeholders, reports,

public consultations, etc., and has to have a solid legal foundation. There is also not a lot of

room to increase the harmonisation of the European laws, because when it comes to the

right holders and rights that each of them possesses, the existing Directives are already

sufficiently harmonised. Nevertheless, the ABC_DJ consortium could lobby alongside other

stakeholders in order to try to introduces some improvements that facilitate the audio

branding services' strategy.

The main would be to propose to broaden the application range of Title III of the Collective

Management Directive to include the traditional forms of use of the works, in addition to the

digital one, and thus make it easier to obtain licenses for the use of music on a pan-European

level, in lieu of having to get several licenses in every country.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

Propose the creation of one-stop music licensing in the EU

As explained in Deliverable 7.2, many countries already contemplate one-stop collective

rights management through a coalition of several CMOs for the collective collection of their

fees from the users.

One measure the ABC_DJ consortium could propose to the regulators would be the creation

of a pan-European one-stop music licensing organisation, the branches of which could be

the collecting societies that already exist in each country. This could be done through an

order or regulation by way of legislation, if the CMOs cannot come to private agreements to

do so.

Propose a clarification of the situation of music under Creative Commons

licenses or Copyleft

Right now, background music providers are divided between those who offer copyrighted

material and those who focus on “rights-free” content or content published under Creative

Commons licenses. Ideally, the ABC_DJ project should be able to combine the two, and from

a legal standpoint, there is no impediment to do so.

As we have seen in the case law summary, the courts generally acknowledge the CC licenses,

and the national court rulings are along the same lines. But the ABC_DJ consortium, by

means of lobbying with local governments, could come up with a proposal for the EC to

clarify the situation of the works covered by these alternative licenses. On one hand, to

establish what happens with the protection of the part of the performers and phonogram

producers, seeing as these licenses only cover the author's part. On the other, to set a

precedent about how to treat the CMOs' collection of the fees from the venues that use this

kind of works. As we have seen before, many background music services claim to offer works

that do not have to be paid to any collecting society, but this is not true in the territories

where remuneration of the artists and phonogram producers is managed collectively by law.

If the consortium contemplates using copyrighted, CC and Copyleft works, in practice this

would mean that the audio branding provider must sign different contracts with whomever

supplies them with songs. On one hand, blanket licenses with the CMOs for the protected

works, and on the other, individual contracts with each and every right holder outside that

framework. Using smart contracts based on blockchain technology could facilitate the

internal management.

The final client or venue that transmits the songs, should they use a mix of protected and

“rights-free” works, should also take this into account when requesting the corresponding

licenses from the collecting societies, so that, if there are exemptions from the payment of

fees in any territory, this should be taken into account for their calculations.

Regulate the situation of smart contracts and the DAOs

The use of blockchain-based smart contracts to obtain licenses and for posterior payment of

fees could be of great use to the consortium. However, these are not yet regulated in the

European legislations.

The ABC_DJ consortium could work with other stakeholders to propose legislative

measures in order to regulate the situation of blockchain technology in Europe, and

particularly to provide smart contracts and the DAOs with harmonised legal security in the

whole of Europe.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

Avoid breaching the IP laws

The ABC_DJ consortium must guarantee no infractions will be committed against the

copyrights on the musical works and sound recordings it works with. In addition to getting

the proper licenses from all right holders and/or CMOs, it should include certain

mechanisms to avoid fraud. This is especially important in the case of works under CC

licenses or Copyleft, which will be licensed directly from the right holder, because as there

is no previous filter to verify authorship, which normally is provided by collecting societies,

the risk of plagiarism or fraudulent attribution exists, which could lead to lawsuits.

Ideally, any music hosting and providing platform developed by ABC_DJ should have

sufficient information about the right holders to not allow for these infractions to happen in

the first instance. For lack of a global right holders database for musical works, the

consortium could implement measures for registering and association of ownership

metadata with the audio fingerprints. Another option is to use already existing technological

methods to verify authorship, such as Safe Creative, an online intellectual property register

that has been functioning since 2007.

Another possible measure is to establish “notice and stay down” mechanisms, so that, when

a right holder detects a copyright infraction by another user, they can inform the provider

so that they can resolve the conflict and that user, nor any other, can upload the content ever

again claiming authorship.

Become a collecting society

The Collective Management Directive allows for private entities to become collective

societies. Document 7.1 explains the process so that the ABC_DJ consortium can create such

an entity for licensing, collection of fees, and payment to the right holders.

As an example, background music provider SoundReef is already offering these services to

its users, using Safe Creative for the authentication of the works' authorship, and offering a

non-exclusive agreement to the right holders for the management and collecting of the rights

in the modality of background music only.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

7. Conclusions

An audio branding service provider that wants to operate in the territory of the EU is facing

having to develop in an environment where laws are constantly changing, and also still very

compartmentalised.

We are seeing a very harmonised Intellectual Property legal framework in Europe, albeit in

constant development, due to the incursion of internet in our lives, a circumstance that has

caused a continuing evolution in the jurisprudential doctrine and in the Directives and

national laws. However, the rights and the right holders are the same in virtually all of the

countries we researched.

There are particularities in national legislations with regard to the rights' reach, especially

concerning the right of remuneration and the mandatory nature of collective management

of said right by the CMOs, established in certain legislations, which causes great confusion.

Document 7.1 reviews and clarifies these peculiarities.

In short, we find ourselves with a legal framework which, while harmonised, we believe still

needs a lot of work. In Document 7.4. we will try to provide a single-license solution that

would greatly facilitate the management and practice of these rights.

Analysis of European IP Laws for Audio Branding Context v1.3 D7.2

References

Consulting Editor Ben Allgrove. International Copyright Law: A Practical Global Guide

(2013). Globe Law and Business.

M Walter, M., Von Lewinski, S. (2010). European Copyright Law. A Commentary. Oxford.

Congreso Internacional. El Derecho de autor ante los desafíos de un mundo cambiante

(2006). Palestra.

Barberán Molina, P. (2010). Manual práctico de propiedad intelectual. Práctica Jurídica.

Tecnos.

Tapscott D., Tapscott A. (2016). Blockchain Revolution. How the technology behind

bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world.

Aaron Wright & Primavera De Filippi (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and

the rise of lex cryptographia.

Performers’ Rights in International and European Legislation: Situation and Elements

for Improvement (2014). AEPO-ARTIS

Online sources:

WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html

CISAC: http://www.cisac.org

VLEX: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en

CURIA: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/

EC: http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm

Creative Commons: https://creativecommons.org