The fact that the decision was rendered null due to the provisions of Arts. 609(1) and 615(1)(e) CPC, considering that the defendant could not be ordered to pay annual compensation “corresponding to the amount per minute of the performances by artists, interpreters or performers displayed by the defendant” – given the request of payment of compensation as set by Art. 178(2) and (3) CDADC against a 1.50% of revenues to be determined – does not mean that the Court cannot adjudge the defendant to compensate the plaintiff, annually, since September of 2004, according to a compensation at a rate to be determined.
The fact that the Court decided that the request for a judgement of percentage could not proceed does not mean that a judgement of percentage or à forfait cannot be ordered in an award calculation as long as the conditions of that calculation are not those which were excluded by the judgement.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Translation by Nuno Sousa e Silva.
About this article
Cite this article
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act (CDADC), Art. 178(2) and (3); Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Arts. 360(4), 609(1), 615(1)(e). “Performers’ Remuneration”. IIC 49, 734–741 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0731-1
- Artists, interpreters and performers
- Neighbouring rights
- Method of calculation