Economic and moral rights in Europe and abroad

Dr Estelle Derclaye

Turin, October 2011

OUTLINE

• Introduction • I. Economic rights in the EU,

including a few words on secondary liability

• II. Moral rights in the EU– France, UK

2(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

I. Economic rights

• Economic rights = most harmonised in the EU (except: right of adaptation and public performance)

• Also right of lending and rental – see later• Infosoc Directive (2001):

– Reproduction – art. 2– Communication to the public (+ making

available right) - art. 3– Distribution – art. 4 (+ exhaustion principle)

3(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Infosoc Directive, chapter 2 Art. 2 – Reproduction right

• “Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:

• (a) for authors, of their works; • (b) for performers, of fixations of their performances; • (c) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms; • (d) for the producers of the first fixations of films, in respect of

the original and copies of their films; • (e) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their

broadcasts, whether those broadcasts are transmitted by wire or over the air, including by cable or satellite.”

• Infopaq decision, July 2009 ECJ

4(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Art. 3 – right to communicate and making available to the public

• “1. Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

• 2. Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the making available to the public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them: …

5(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Art. 3 – right to communicate and making available to the public

• (a) for performers, of fixations of their performances; • (b) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms; • (c) for the producers of the first fixations of films, of the

original and copies of their films; • (d) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their

broadcasts, whether these broadcasts are transmitted by wire or over the air, including by cable or satellite.

• 3. The rights referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be exhausted by any act of communication to the public or making available to the public as set out in this Article.”

6(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Interpretation of “communication to the public”

• SGAE v Rafael Hoteles (2006), case C-306/05 • 1. While the mere provision of physical facilities does not

as such amount to communication (…), the distribution of a signal by means of television sets by a hotel to customers staying in its rooms, whatever technique is used to transmit the signal, constitutes communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.

• 2. The private nature of hotel rooms does not preclude the communication of a work by means of television sets from constituting communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 7

Interpretation of “communication to the public”

• FAPL v Murphy, §207: ‘Communication to the public’ within the meaning of art. 3(1) of Infosoc Directive must be interpreted as covering transmission of the broadcast works, via a television screen and speakers, to the customers present in a public house.

• New cases: Phonographic Performance v Ireland, SCF v Marco del Corso

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 8

Airfield – AG opinion

• Question 1: Must the provider of satellite ‘bouquets’ obtain an authorisation from copyright owner when retransmitting tv channels indirectly?

• Communication to the public by satellite = autonomous notion which must be interpreted uniformly

• The communication is indirect because the broadcasters uses Canal Digitaal to code its signals by the intermediary of Airfield which uploads them

E. Derclaye 2011 9

Airfield

• Communication to the public refers to ‘le grand public’ and thus excludes professionals and can be only potential. Thus the acts of retransmission which correspond to capturing the signals are not such a communication but only the provision of signals which attain Airfield’s subscribers

• These may be different from the viewers of the broadcaster => new public (as per SGAE)

E. Derclaye 2011 10

SCF - AG opinion

• Question: Must a dentist which communicates radio broadcasts in its practice pay an equitable remuneration for indirect communication to the public of the phonograms included in the broadcasts? YES

• Like the hotel operator, the dentist does not only make available reading devices (e.g. a radio) but communicates indirectly the phonograms included in the broadcasts

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 11

SCF - AG opinion

• Communication to the public is not limited to cases of transmission of the signal by tv or radio distinct from the initial transmission so the direct reception by tvs or radios is included in notion of communication to the public

• It is to the public: the patients stay less long than in hotel rooms but there are more of them coming one after the other than in hotels => there is succession and accumulation => considerable communication of phonograms

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 12

Art. 4 - Distribution right

• 1. Member States shall provide for authors, in respect of the original of their works or of copies thereof, the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any form of distribution to the public by sale or otherwise.

• 2. The distribution right shall not be exhausted within the Community in respect of the original or copies of the work, except where the first sale or other transfer of ownership in the Community of that object is made by the rightholder or with his consent.

13(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Economic rights

• Secondary liability is not harmonised but may be more difficult to harmonise as in many Member States, this touches upon tort law, an area of debatable Community competence

14(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Infringement on the Internet (P2P)

• Private initiatives in several countries to ask ISPs to warn customers to stop downloading download illegal content via P2P systems (e.g. BitTorrent) or their internet connection is cut off

• France: new independent government anti-piracy body: warn and if necessary court cuts off internet access => HADOPI law passed in October 2009: “3 strikes and you’re out”

• UK: Digital Economy Act – cut off or slow connection• Problem: ISPs need to monitor activities = use of

expensive software, price repercussions on all customers + issue of privacy and freedom of speech as legitimate traffic is controlled as well

15(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Infringement on the Internet (P2P)

• Belgium: SABAM v. Scarlet, June 07: order ISPs to implement blocking or filtering technology to prevent unlawful file-sharing; supposedly, software now exists (CopySense Network alliance)

• ECJ decision: Promusicae v. Telefonica de Espana (29.01.2008): whether effective protection meant that member states had to require ISPs to disclose personal traffic data in order for IPR holders to bring civil proceedings

16(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Infringement on the Internet (P2P)

• Ruling: no obligation – member states should themselves strike a balance between copyright and right to privacy

• Contrary to Data Protection Directive 95/46???

17(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Scarlet v SABAM

• The ISP Scarlet has been ordered to filter all communications on its network to identify files protected by copyright and then block the transfer of these

• Question from Belgian CA: may a Member State’s court order an ISP to put a system in place in respect of all its clients, in abstracto and preventively, at its exclusive charge and without time limitation, a system filtrating all its communications in order to identify files protected by copyright namely audiovisual and musical works) and block their transfer?

• AG opinion only so far: answer = no

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 18

Scarlet v SABAM

• Conclusion: = new general obligation for ISPs, it is not concrete not individualised, the law is not clear and precise so that individuals know their rights and obligations

• The filtering and blocking system has no specific guarantee re protection of personal data and confidentiality of communications and users cannot argue against the blocking (=> breaches human rights)

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 19

Scarlet v SABAM

• The Belgian law (which simply says that courts can order an injunction to prevent infringement of copyright and related rights) is not a sufficient legal basis to adopt an injunction imposing such filtering and blocking system – it does not respect legal certainty and legitimate trust

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 20

II. The moral rights: international and national laws

• 1. Introduction

• 2. The Berne Convention

• 3. The content of moral rights

• 4. New WIPO treaties : WCT and WPPT

• 5. Main differences in national laws

21(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

1. Introduction • Moral rights are personal to the author/creator. A

company cannot have moral rights • Independent of the author’s economic rights and

inalienable (exception: Germany and Austria)• Civil Law origins - French ‘droit moral’ or ‘droits moraux’

>< common law: copyright centers on economic - not a personal right.

• Concerns an author’s relationship with his/her work (name, honour and reputation) rather than commercial value/exploitation of the work

• The two main moral rights are the rights of:1) Paternity or attribution – the right of the author to be made known

to the public as the creator of the work; and

2) Integrity – which prevents distortion of the work

22(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

2. International acceptance of moral rights

The foundation for international protection of

moral rights is in Article 6bis of the Berne

Convention.

The Convention mandates two types of rights

which must be granted by the member

countries:

1. Paternity (attribution) right

2. Integrity right

23(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

2. The Berne Convention

• Art. 6 bis : 2 moral rights: • Attribution : "(1) Independently of the author's economic

rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work... ”

• Integrity : (…) the right "to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to... [his] work, which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation".

24(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

3. Content of the moral rights: Paternity or attribution right

-General rules applicable in most countries:

- Right to claim authorship of a work even after the

transfer of copyright.

- Right to be identified in relation to the work when work

is commercially exploited.

- Identification should be reasonably prominent on the

work

- No identification necessary if reasonable not to

identify the author.

25(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Integrity right

- General rules applicable in most countries:- The right of integrity or to object to derogatory

treatment protects the artist’s personality as expressed in the work

- The right to object to any derogatory treatment allows the author to sue if there is any action (Berne convention) which can be an addition, deletion, in short a change, but also simply an action without change to the work which is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation.

- Depending on the country it includes destruction (see below)

26(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Right against False Attribution

• Right of ANY person against misleading and deceptive attributions = so does not only belong to authors

• Reverse of paternity right

27(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Other moral rights- Conferred in some jurisdictions but mainly in civil law

countries - Right of an author to choose whether his/her work

should be published or not (divulgation right)- The right of retractation ie to withdraw a work (subject

to compensation)- Right of access – right of author to see the original of

the work (eg painting) mainly to exploit it (eg make photographs)

- The right to privacy in respect of photographs commissioned for private or domestic purposes (“the privacy right”). Belongs to the commissioner of the photograph

28(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Duration of moral rights

• Unclear as not stated in article 6bis of the Berne Convention

• Depends on the country but in most, duration is the same as economic rights (see following slides for more detail)

• Any infringement of the right occurring after the author’s death is actionable by his/her heirs or if no heirs, the state

29(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Waivers- Moral rights are inalienable between living persons

but transferable upon death and can be waived - Lenient in common law countries >< strict in civil

law countries.- Publishers with their superior bargaining position

often obtain authors’ consent to acts or omissions that might otherwise infringe their moral rights.

- In addition, employees (ie for works made in the course of employment) enjoy reduced or even no moral rights in the UK (similar provisions allow this in other common law countries eg Australia) – see more on following slides

30(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

4. The WCT and the WPPT

• WCT : nothing on moral rights

• WPPT : art. 5 : performer’s moral rights"(1) Independently of a performer's economic rights, and

even after the transfer of those rights, the performer shall, as regards his live aural performances or performances fixed in phonograms, have the right to claim to be identified as the performer of his performances, except where omission is dictated by the manner of the use of the performance, and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his performances that would be prejudicial to his reputation."

31(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Main differences

• Duration : I, F : perpetual

• Right of divulgation: some do recognise, some don’t or recognise an economic right of publication (UK)

• Right of attribution : UK: assertion for right to object to false attribution >< other European countries

• Right of integrity : absolute >< limited right, variations with type of work

32(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

UK

• 4 moral rights in the UK: paternity, integrity, false attribution and privacy

• Paternity: – Right does not arise automatically; need to be

asserted by author– Extensive exceptions some e.g. technical or

functional works (computer programs, computer-generated works, typefaces…), works made for the purpose of reporting current events, contributions in a newspaper, magazine or periodical, encyclopaedia or similar work

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 33

UK

• Derogatory treatment: addition, deletion, alteration or adaptation of the work; mutilation or distortion of work or the change is prejudicial to the author’s reputation or honour. Includes destruction (Harrison v Harrison case)

• Exceptions include: computer program, a change of key or register for a musical work or a translation of LD work not a treatment of the work

(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011 34

Example

35(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

France

• Right of paternity:• According to French courts, an editor cannot

reveal the name of the author if the author chose to remain anonymous or chose a pseudonym.

• The name of the architect must be mentioned on the building. However, if the architect’s work is not original, his name must not be mentioned. Similarly, his name must be mentioned on photographs of the building.

• On the contrary, the right of attribution of an author of design or of a work of applied arts, may be limited.

36(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

France

• Right of integrity: case law• Changing the context of the work can be a breach (><

UK)• Dramatic works: The director of a play must respect the

author’s conceptions. In particular the director cannot change the play’s ending and the scenic indications such as to distort the work. He cannot take a character out of his environment.

• Musical works: A song (or a work in general, such as a picture) cannot be used for an advert or a broadcast which would go against the conceptions of the author

37(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

France • Works of visual and plastic art: • The following acts been held to infringe the integrity right :

– to sell a work in separate parts– to centre a photograph differently– to present a drawing upside down

• TGI. Seine, June 7, 1960; Paris, May 30, 1962, D., 1962, 572; Cass. July 6, 1965, Gaz. Pal., 1965, II, 126: the owner of a refrigerator’s panels decorated by Buffet wanted to sell the Different panels or parts of the refrigerator separately. The Court of Appeals of Paris decided that it is an abuse of his right of ownership in the work for the owner to sell the parts separately. The owner can only sell them in their integrity.

38(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

France

• Status of the employed author: • There is never a transfer of moral rights in case

of employment. The author can demand his name to be mentioned, even after the termination of the employment contract, as the right is imprescriptible.

• The employer can impose on the author certain constraints justified by aesthetic or financial reasons. The author cannot in these cases, object to such modifications, and invoke his moral right of integrity.

39(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

France

• Partial waivers are nevertheless allowed - not in advance but a posteriori

• The Court of Appeals of Paris found that an employed American ghost-writer who had waived his right of attribution under U.S. law, could exercise his right in France, because the waiver was against the French ‘ordre public’. See Paris 1st ch., Feb. 1 1989, Anne Bragance, La Nuit du Sérail, RIDA, 1989, n°142, 301. See also the John Huston case.

40(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

Angelica Huston v Turner Entertainment

• [1992] ECC 334 (French Supreme Court) • A black and white film, “Asphalt Jungle”,

directed by John Huston, colourised by Turner Entertainment (the producer’s successors)

• Heirs sued in France for breach of integrity right to prevent showing the colourised version on TV

• Ruling: as with previous case re attribution right, Huston’s waiver in US contract is against French ‘ordre public’.

41(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011

The US and moral rights

• Even if US joined the Convention in 1989, no protection for moral rights except the Visual Artists Rights Act 1990 (VARA).

• VARA gives some moral rights protection to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs produced for exhibition purposes.

42(c) E. Derclaye 2000-2011