Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From Soulier to the EU copyright law reform: what future for non-voluntary collective management schemes?

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

The entry into force of Directive 2014/26/EU represented a shared hope that the field of collective management of copyright would experience more harmonised and consistent development. Yet, the gaps and ambiguities in the text, coupled with the unsystematic construction of EU copyright law, have inevitably led to short-circuits and controversial results. The decision of the European Court of Justice in Soulier and Doke is an eloquent case in point. This article analyses its statements and silences, its potential dangerous systematic effects, and the pending response of the EU legislator to the threats it poses to non-voluntary collective management schemes and the overall copyright balance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Chiefly the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market—COM (2016) 593.

  2. Case C-160/15 GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, EU:C:2016:644.

  3. Case C-484/14 Tobias Mc Fadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH, EU:C:2016:689.

  4. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L 167/10 [Information Society Directive].

  5. 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 [2000] OJ L 178/1.

  6. In fact, in Autumn 2016 the Court of Justice intervened also, inter alia, on the extension of the public lending exception to e-books (Case C-174/15 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, EU:C:2016:856), the applicability of the principle of exhaustion on software backup copies (Case C-166/15 Ranks and Vasiļevičs v Microsoft, EU:C:2016:762), the temporal scope of the Term Directive 93/98/EEC (Case C-169/15 Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV, EU:C:2016:790), and the issue of private levy schemes in case of private copying (Case C-110/15 Microsoft et al. v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali et al., EU:C:2016:717).

  7. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Case C-301/15 Soulier and Doke v Premier ministre and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, EU:C:2016:536.

  8. Loi n. 2012-287 relative à l’exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles du XXe siècle, JORF n. 53, 2 March 2012. The law uses the term ‘unavailable books’, which is also the expression preferred by Ginsburg [10], p. 1425, and Favale–Homberg–Kretschmer et al. [7], p. 72. The term ‘out-of-commerce’ seems more appropriate in light of the formulation used by EU law. See Bulayenko [2], p. 52.

  9. Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works [2012] OJ L299/5.

  10. 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 [2014] OJ L 84/72.

  11. Supra, n. 1.

  12. Art. 9, Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights [1993] OJ L290/9.

  13. Art. 6(2), Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art [2001] OJ L272/32.

  14. Art. 5(4), Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property [2006] OJ L 376/28 [Rental II Directive].

  15. See, e.g., Ficsor [8], p. 42 ff; contra von Lewinsky [24], pp. 4–5.

  16. Explicitly Strowel [23], p. 668.

  17. See Riis–Rognstad–Schovsbo [20], p. 55 ff.; Koskinen–Olsson [12], p. 283 ff., Strowel [23], p. 666.

  18. Comparatively analysed by Guibault [11], p. 176 ff.

  19. Gesetz zur Nutzung verwaister und vergriffener Werke, Bundesgesetzblatt 8.10.2013. More details in Guibault [11], p. 176 ff., and Samuelson [21], p. 78.

  20. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/copyright-infso/20110920-mou_en.pdf (accessed 15 December 2017). See also the Commission Recommendation on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation, 2011/711/EU [2011] OJ L 283/39. The Memorandum of Understanding will be analysed in more detailed in para 3.1 below.

  21. See Matulionyte [16], p. 1.

  22. Act 283/2014 of 12.9.2014, available at: http://www.ifrro.org/sites/default/files/2014-283_copyright_act_amendment_orphanooc_works.pdf (accessed 15 December 2017).

  23. Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 2014, No. 2588, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111116890 (accessed 15 December 2017). See Mendis–Stobo [17], p. 208.

  24. Recital 18 of the Information Society Directive was introduced upon the request of Nordic countries, concerned about the potentially detrimental effects that the Directive could have had on their extended collective licence schemes. See Verronen [24], p. 1156, and Koskinen–Olsson [12], p. 303.

  25. For other critical aspects of the Directive see, already before its enactment, Drexl/Nérisson/Trumpke/Hilty [5].

  26. Strowel [23], p. 668.

  27. EU Memorandum of Understanding, Recital 1.

  28. Ibid., Principle 1.

  29. Ibid., Principle 2.1.

  30. Ibid., Principle 2.2–2.3.

  31. Ibid., Principle 2.4–2.5.

  32. Ibid.

  33. Ibid., Recital 9.

  34. Reported in the Communiqué du ministère de la culture et de la communication, Une deuxième vie pour des titres indisponibles, 2.2.2011, available at http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/Ministere/Histoire-du-ministere/Ressources-documentaires/Discours/Discours-de-ministres-depuis-1999/Frederic-Mitterrand-2009-2012/Articles-2009-2012/Une-deuxieme-vie-pour-des-titres-indisponibles (accessed 15 December 2017). See also Gaymard [9], p. 13 ff. More in Macrez [15], p. 751, and Bulayenko [2], p. 53, fn. 10.

  35. In JORF No 53 of 2.3.2012, 3986.

  36. The decree introduced into Title III, Book I of the CPI on exploitation of rights a new Chapter IV, entitled ‘Special provisions relating to the digital exploitation of out-of-print books’ (Arts. L.134-1 to 134-9), with the aim to facilitate the digitisation of French books published before 1.1.2001 and no longer commercially distributed in print or digital formats.

  37. E.g. the provision that allowed public libraries to offer access to digitised copies of books for which no author could be found (Art. L-134-8 CPI). Act. No. 2015-195 of 20.2.2015, JORF No 45 of 22.2.2015, p. 3294.

  38. JORF No 51 of 1.3.2013, p. 3835.

  39. Art. L.134-2 CPI. See Ginsburg [10], p. 1426 and Bulayenko [2], p. 54.

  40. Art. L.122-1 CPI, which includes the two rights under the broad umbrella of the right of exploitation.

  41. The selected collective management organisation was SOFIA (Société française des intérêts des auteurs de l’écrit), http://www.la-sofia.org.

  42. Art. L.134-5 CPI.

  43. More in Nérisson [18], p. 1428 ff.

  44. Art. L.134-3 CPI. On this basis, some scholars have maintained that the French law favours authors, since they may easily earn more royalties under the collective management scheme than under bilateral publishing contracts. See, e.g., Derieux [4], p. 68.

  45. Art. L.134-4 CPI.

  46. Art. L.134-6 CPI.

  47. Ibid.

  48. Bulayenko [2] pp. 54–55.

  49. See Macrez [15], p. 757, Ginsburg [10], p. 1429, labelling it as expropriation, Derieux [4], pp. 66–67, and Emile–Zola–Place [6], p. 35.

  50. This is the case also for the French CPI, which excluded the possibility to withdraw from mandatory collective management schemes such as those provided for public lending rights (L.134-4) and cable retransmission rights (L.122-10).

  51. See Nérisson [18], p. 1431, Emile–Zola–Place [6], p. 360, and Leclerc–Orloff [13], p. 49.

  52. As in Piriou [19], p. 10.

  53. See Bruguière [1], p. 411 ff.

  54. C.C., Décision n. 2013-370 QPC of 28.2.2014, M. Marc S. et autre, heavily criticised for its industry-oriented interpretation of the notion of public interest by, inter alia, Nérisson [18], p. 1429, and Derieux [3], p. 103 ff.

  55. C.C., Décision n. 2013-370, para. 18.

  56. C.E., Décision 6.5.2015, n. 368208, M.S., MMme D.. FR:CESSR:2015:368208.20150506.

  57. Ibid., para. 17.

  58. Ibid., para. 7. Along the same lines already von Lewinski [25], p. 11.

  59. Soulier and Doke, paras. 27–31.

  60. Case C-435/12 ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie and Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding, EU:C:2014:254.

  61. Case C-479/04 Laserdisken ApS v Kulturministeriet, EU:C:2006:549.

  62. Case C-351/12 OSA—Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s. v Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně a.s., EU:C:2014:110, para. 36.

  63. Case C-135/10 SCF v Marco Del Corso, EU:C:2012:140, para. 75.

  64. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Soulier and Doke, para. 36.

  65. Ibid., para. 38, according to which the prior express consent represents an essential element of the author’s exclusive rights, particularly in light of the high level of protection required by Recital 9 of the Information Society Directive (ibid., para. 34).

  66. Ibid., para. 39.

  67. Ibid., fn. 26.

  68. The Court of Justice has made this distinction already in OSA, para. 36, distinguishing between the rights protected under Arts. 2(a) and 3(1) of the Information Society Directive from, e.g., the right to remuneration of performers under Art. 8(2) Rental II Directive.

  69. The reference goes to the burden of proof imposed on authors to demonstrate to be the only owner of the right to digitally exploit the work, and to the impossibility of opposing in any case the exploitation of the work if already licensed before the author’s notification of withdrawal. See Soulier and Doke, fn. 30–31.

  70. Ibid., para. 43.

  71. Ibid., para. 44.

  72. Ibid., para. 46, referring to Art. 12(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [2008] OJ L 299/25, and Arts. 15(1) and 51 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark [2009] OJ L 78/1.

  73. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Soulier and Doke, paras. 48–49.

  74. Ibid., para. 53.

  75. Ibid., para. 57.

  76. Ibid.

  77. Ibid., para. 60, also mentioning the reference that the European Memorandum of Understanding makes to ‘voluntary agreements’.

  78. Ibid., paras. 62–64.

  79. More recently, see Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in Case C-174/15 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, EU:C:2016:459, for whom the main goal of copyright law ‘is to safeguard the interests of authors’ (para. 34). Similarly, see Case C-277/10 Martin Luksan v Petrus van der Let, EU:C:2012:65.

  80. While authors are only reassured that they will receive a fair and equal share of the royalties collected by the collective management organisation, and that their moral rights are still protected. See supra, n. 17.

  81. Similarly, see Ginsburg [10], pp. 1428–1429.

  82. In France, see the example of FeniXX, http://www.fenixx.fr/ (accessed 15 December 2017).

  83. For an overview and comments on the provision, see Lucas et al. [14], pp. 732 ff.

  84. As underlined by Ginsburg [10], pp. 1428–1429.

  85. See supra, n. 15 and corresponding text.

  86. Paras. 29–31.

  87. Paras. 33–34.

  88. Ibid., paras 35–36. See Case C-466/12 Nils Svensson and Others v Retriever Sverige AB, EU:C:2014:76, paras. 25–28.

  89. Soulier and Doke, paras 37–38.

  90. Ibid., para. 39.

  91. Ibid., para. 43.

  92. Ibid., paras. 47–48.

  93. Ibid., paras. 50–51.

  94. As I labelled them in Sganga [22], p. 321.

  95. Similarly, Recitals 22 and 23 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive attribute full flexibility to Member States to choose extended collective licences in order to facilitate licensing schemes having cross-border effects, in light of the difficulties to obtain the prior consent of right-holders.

  96. (Emphasis added).

  97. Ibid., Recital 28a, qualifying extended collective licences as ‘a well-established practice in several Member States’, allowing collective management organisations ‘to offer licences covering large volumes of works or other subject-matter for certain types of use, and distribute the revenue received to right-holders’, and Recital 28b, referring to the prohibitively high transaction cost of individual rights clearance compared to the commercial value of the use, making individual transactions unlikely to take place, and defining extended collective licences ‘as a complement to collective management based on individual mandates, by providing full legal certainty to users’.

  98. Ibid., Recital 28e.

  99. Ibid., with the exclusion of mandatory collective management schemes.

  100. Ibid., Recital 28c.

  101. Ibid.

  102. Recital 28g also requires such information to be discussed in the contact committee referred to in Art. 12(3) of the Information Society Directive, and asks the Commission to publish a report by the end of December 2020 ‘on the use of such mechanisms in the Union and their impact on licensing and right-holders’.

  103. The reference mostly goes to Case C-117/13 Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG, EU:C:2014:1795, and Case C-174/15 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, EU:C:2016:459.

References

  1. Bruguière, J-M.: Œuvres indisponible: Régime du livre indisponible (second partie). Propr. Intellect. 4, 411–429 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bulayenko, O.: Permissibility of non-voluntary collective management of copyright under EU law. The case of the French law on out-of-commerce books. JIPITEC 1, 52–68 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Derieux, E.: Exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles: déclaration de conformité à la Constitution des dispositions des articles L. 134-1 à L. 134-9 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle. RLDI 103–133 (2014)

  4. Derieux, E.: Le régime juridique de l’exploitation numérique des libres indisponibles du XXe siècle: Cheval de Troie de Google? RLDI 87, 64–72 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Drexl, J., Nérisson, S., Trumpke, F., Hilty, R.: Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market COM (2012) 372 (16 January 2013). Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 13-04. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2208971

  6. Emile-Zola-Place, E.: L’exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles du XXe siècle: une gestion collective d’un genre nouveau. Légipresse 295, 355–363 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Favale, M., Homberg, F., Kretschmer, M., et al.: Copyright, and the Regulation of Orphan Works: a Comparative Review of Seven Jurisdictions and a Rights Clearance Simulation. Report for the IP Office of the UK (2013/31)

  8. Ficsor, M.: Collective management of copyright and related rights from the viewpoint of international norms and the acquis communautaire. In: Gervais, D. (ed.) Collective Management of Copyright and Relater Rights, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gaymard, V.H.: Rapport n. 4189. Ass. Nat. (2012)

  10. Ginsburg, J.: Fair use for free, or permitted-but-paid. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 29, 1382–1446 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guibault, L.: Cultural heritage online? Settle it in the country of origin of the work. JIPITEC 6, 173–191 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Koskinen-Olsson, T.: Collective management in the Nordic countries. In: Gervais, D. (ed.) Collective Management of Copyright and Relater Rights, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leclerc, M-C., Orloff, N.: La gestion collective en matière d’écrit. In: Tafforeau, P. (ed.) Pratique de la propriété littéraire et artistique. Lexis, Paris (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lucas, A., et al.: Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique, 4th edn. Lexis, Paris (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Macrez, F.: L’exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles: que reste-t-il du droit d’auteur? Recl. Dalloz 12, 75–85 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Matulionyte, R.: 10 years for Google Books and Europeana: copyright law lessons that the EU could learn from the USA. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 1, 44–71 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mendis, D., Stobo, V.: Extended collective licensing in the UK—one year on: a review of the law and a look ahead to the future. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. 38, 208–220 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nérisson, S.: La gestion collective des droits numériques des «livres indisponibles du XXe siècle» renvoyée à la CJEU, le Conseil d’Etat face aux fondamentaux du droit d’auteur. Recl. Dalloz 24, 1427–1431 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Piriou, F-M.: Nouvelle querelle des anciens et des modernes: la loi du 1er mars 2012. Commun. Commer. Electron. 10, étude 17 (2012)

  20. Riis, T., Rognstad, O.A., Schovsbo, J.: Collective agreements for the clearance of copyrights—the case of collective management and extended collective licenses. In: Riis, T. (ed.) User Generated Law. Reconstructing Intellectual Property Law in a Knowledge Society. Edward Elgar, Cheltenam (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Samuelson, P.: Extended collective licensing to enable mass digitization: a critique of the U.S. copyright office proposal. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. 38, 75–82 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sganga, C.: The eloquent silence of soulier and doke and its critical implications for EU copyright law. J. Intellect. Prop. Law Pract. 12(4), 321–330 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Strowel, A.: The European “Extended Collective Licensing” model. Columbia J. Law Arts 34, 665–669 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Verronen, V.: Extended collective license in Finland: a legal instrument for balancing the rights of the author with the interests of the user. J. Copyr. Soc. U.S.A. 49, 1143–1159 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. von Lewinsky, S.: Mandatory Collective Administration of Exclusive Rights. A Case study on Its Compatibility with International and EC Copyright Law. UNESCO e-Copyright Bullettin, January–March (2004)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Budapest, Hungary

    Caterina Sganga

Authors
  1. Caterina Sganga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caterina Sganga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sganga, C. From Soulier to the EU copyright law reform: what future for non-voluntary collective management schemes?. ERA Forum 19, 137–154 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0496-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0496-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation