Abstract
Articles 18 and 20 of Directive 2019/790 introduce new legal tools for the protection of authors and performers against unfair agreements as regards their remuneration for the contractual exploitation of their works and performances. Article 18 establishes a general principle according to which authors and performers are entitled to receive appropriate and proportionate remuneration when they grant exclusive exploitation rights. The principle can be implemented into the laws of member states with the use of various legal mechanisms. Article 20 provides for a right to additional, appropriate, and fair remuneration when the one originally agreed upon turns out to be disproportionately low compared to the exploitation revenue. The formulation of the provisions leaves room for different interpretative approaches. This fact, combined with the legislative discretion left to national legislators, makes the implementation of the new articles into the legal orders of the member states a challenging task. The author analyzes various issues relating to the scope, interpretation, and national implementation of the new provisions while being critical toward certain choices of the European legislator.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Hilty and Moscon (2017), p. 72.
- 2.
See Dusollier et al. (2014), p. 36.
- 3.
Aguilar (2018), p. 178.
- 4.
Impatience is one of the factors that have an impact on negotiation balance. It can be the result of moral factors, e.g. dissemination of one’s creation to a wider audience or acquisition of fame, or from economic factors, e.g. lack of income from other sources. For a full analysis of these factors See Kretschmer et al. (2010), pp. 29 ff.
- 5.
See European Commission (2016), p. 175.
- 6.
See Schricker (1992), p. 246: “Hauptkampfplatz für die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Verwerter- und Urheberinteressen ist das Urhebervertragsrecht. Es ist das Arbeitsrecht der freiberuflichen Autoren.”
- 7.
See Priora (2020), p. 1.
- 8.
Aguilar (2019a) Part I. However, as Aguilar mentions, the legal instrument demanded by the coalition behind this campaign would be a collectively managed unwaivable equitable remuneration right, comparable to that already existing in relation to broadcasts and public performance in most member states.
- 9.
See Lucas-Schloetter (2018), p. 431.
- 10.
See article 23 para. 2 CDSM Directive.
- 11.
Both the copyright transferee and the exclusive licensee can exercise the copyright, prohibit the use of the work by any person—including their transferor or licensor—and initiate legal action against any infringers. Quite characteristically, in U.S. law (17 U.S.C. § 101) the exclusive license is considered a form of transfer of copyright ownership. For an extensive analysis, see Newman (2013), passim.
- 12.
Lucas-Schloetter (2018), p. 430.
- 13.
Dusollier (2020), p. 5.
- 14.
The application of the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration as regards authors and performers in employment relationships can be contested, even in cases where the employees create works that will be exploited in the market by the employer. Generally, the salary is considered sufficient remuneration for the transfer of the exploitation rights to the employer, because the employer bears the economic risk for the creation and commercial exploitation of the work. For an extensive analysis see Ulrici (2008), pp. 265–383.
- 15.
- 16.
See art. 32 para. 2 of the German Copyright Act.
- 17.
See European Commission (2016), p. 174.
- 18.
Dusollier et al. (2020), p. 2. See also Rec. 73 CDSM Directive: “[…] A lump sum payment can also constitute proportionate remuneration but it should not be the rule. […]”. According to another interpretation of the provision the term “proportionate” means that authors and performers should receive lower remuneration because they are not entitled to the full value of the rights, but only a portion thereof. See Aguilar (2019a) Part I.
- 19.
Peifer (2020), p. 16.
- 20.
- 21.
Guibault et al. (2015), p. 109.
- 22.
Lucas-Schloetter (2017), p. 898.
- 23.
Dusollier et al. (2020), p. 13.
- 24.
The answer should be negative according to Priora (2020), p. 2.
- 25.
Recital 82 CDSM Directive reads: “Nothing in this Directive should be interpreted as preventing holders of exclusive rights under Union copyright law from authorising the use of their works or other subject matter for free, including through non-exclusive free licences for the benefit of any users.”
- 26.
See Sect. 2.2 above.
- 27.
Würtenberger and Freischem (2019), p. 1162.
- 28.
See BGH, Urteil vom 7. 10. 2009 - I ZR 38/07 (OLG München) - Talking to Addison, GRUR 2009, 1148.
- 29.
Houareau (2019), p. 638.
- 30.
Hentsch (2019), p. 352.
- 31.
Bently et al. (2017), p. 54.
- 32.
See Aguilar (2019b) Part II.
- 33.
See Berger (2003), p. 677.
- 34.
Art. 32a German Copyright Act.
- 35.
Art. L. 131-5 French Intellectual Property Code.
- 36.
Only as regards publishing and performance contracts. See articles XI.196(2) and XI.202 of Law of April 19, 2014, on the Insertion of 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.
- 37.
Section 2374 para. 1 New Czech Civil Code.
- 38.
Art. 54 Copyright and Related Rights Act (O.G. 167/2003).
- 39.
Art. 25d Law of March 6, 2003, on the Supervision of Collective Management Organizations for Copyright and Related Rights.
- 40.
Art. 48 Act LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright (as of 28/10/2014).
- 41.
Art. 49 Code of Copyright and Related Rights.
- 42.
Art. 44 Polish Copyright Act.
- 43.
Art. 43 para. 3 Law No. 8 of March 14, 1996 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights.
- 44.
Art. 81 para. 2 Law on Copyright and Related Rights.
- 45.
Art. 47 Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, of April 12, which approves the revised text of the Intellectual Property Law, regularizing, clarifying and harmonizing legal provisions in force on the matter.
- 46.
See BGH, Urteil vom 22.09.2011 – I ZR 127/10 – “Das Boot”, WRP 2012, 565, BGH, Urteil v. 20.02.2020 - I ZR 176/18 – “Das Boot II”, WRP 2020, 591.
- 47.
BGH, Urt. v. 10.5.2012 – I ZR 145/11 – Fluch der Karibik, GRUR 2012, 1248, Kammergericht, Urt. v. 1.6.2016 – 24 U 25/15, mit Berichtigungsbeschl. v. 6.7.2016 - Fluch der Karibik II, GRUR Int. 2016, 1072.
- 48.
See Hall (2019).
- 49.
See para. 2.2.
- 50.
Bently et al. (2017), p. 48.
- 51.
- 52.
Dreier and Schulze (2018) § 30 Rn 2.
- 53.
See Dusollier et al. (2014), p. 101.
- 54.
Schulze (2019), p. 684.
- 55.
See Rec. 78 CDSM Directive: “[…] Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority […].”
- 56.
See Art. L. 131-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code, the text of which reads as follows: “If the exploitation right has been assigned and the author suffers a prejudice of more than seven-twelfths as a result of a burdensome contract or of insufficient advance estimate of the proceeds from the work, he may demand review of the price conditions under the contract. Such demand may only be formulated where the work has been assigned against lump sum remuneration. The burdensome contract shall be assessed taking into account the overall exploitation by the assignee of the works of the author who claims to have suffered a prejudice”.
- 57.
This was the case with Art. 36 of the German Copyright Act, which was replaced by Art. 32a in 2002.
- 58.
See Art. 32a para 1(3) of the German Copyright Act, which expressively excludes such a condition: “Ob die Vertragspartner die Höhe der erzielten Erträge oder Vorteile vorhergesehen haben oder hätten vorhersehen können, ist unerheblich”.
- 59.
Lucas-Schloetter (2019), p. 602.
- 60.
Dusollier et al. (2020), p. 19.
- 61.
Reber (2016), pp. 1079–1081.
- 62.
Spindler (2019), p. 952.
- 63.
See article 23 para. 1 CDSM Directive.
- 64.
See articles 8 para. 1, 12, 19 para. 5, 22 para. 5 CDSM Directive.
- 65.
Regulation 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations.
- 66.
See Rec. 81 CDSM Directive.
- 67.
Dusollier et al. (2020), p. 13.
- 68.
Dusollier et al. (2020), p. 11.
- 69.
Priora (2020), p. 3.
- 70.
Schulze (2019), p. 685.
- 71.
Hilty and Moscon (2017), p. 76.
- 72.
Peifer (2019), p. 655.
- 73.
See European Copyright Society (2017).
- 74.
- 75.
Quite characteristically, various European legal orders provide for rights to additional remuneration like the one foreseen in article 20 CDSM to inventors of patented inventions.
References
Aguilar A (2018) ‘We want Artists to be Fully and Fairly Paid for their Work’ - Discourses on Fairness in the Neoliberal European Copyright Reform. J Intellect Prop Inf Technol E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC):160–178
Aguilar A (2019a) The New Copyright Directive: fair remuneration in exploitation contracts of authors and performers – Part 1, Articles 18 and 19, http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/08/01/the-new-copyright-directive-fair-remuneration-in-exploitation-contracts-of-authors-and-performers-part-ii-articles-20-23/. Accessed 03 Mar 2020
Aguilar A (2019b) The New Copyright Directive: Fair remuneration in exploitation contracts of authors and performers – Part II, Articles 20 and 23. http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/08/01/the-new-copyright-directive-fair-remuneration-in-exploitation-contracts-of-authors-and-performers-part-ii-articles-20-23/?doing_wp_cron=1589186575.2649030685424804687500. Accessed 05 May 2020
Azzi T (2017) General Report: mechanisms to ensure adequate remuneration for creators and performers. In: von Lewinski S (ed) Remuneration for the use of works. de Gryuter, Berlin/Boston, pp 85–110
Bently L et al (2017) Strengthening the Position of Press Publishers and Authors and Performers in the Copyright Directive. European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596810/IPOL_STU(2017)596810_EN.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2020
Berger C (2003) Grundfragen der “weiteren Beteiligung” des Urhebers nach § URHG § 32a UrhG. Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR):675–681
Dreier T, Schulze G (eds) (2018) Urheberrechtsgesetz, 6. Auflage. Beck, München
Dusollier S et al (2014) Contractual arrangements applicable to creators: law and practice of selected member states - study. European Parliament, Directorate-General for internal policies. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/juri/dv/contractualarangements_/contractualarangements_en.pdf. Accessed 03 June 2020
Dusollier S et al (2020) Comment of the European Copyright Society Addressing Selected Aspects of the Implementation of Articles 18 to 22 of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/ecs_comment_art_18-22_contracts_20200611.pdf. Accessed 09 June 2020
European Commission (2016) Impact Assessment on the modernisation of EU copyright rules Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/impact-assessment-modernisation-eu-copyright-rules. Accessed 10 June 2020
European Copyright Society (2017) General Opinion on the EU Copyright Reform Package. https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ecs-opinion-on-eu-copyright-reform-def.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2020
Guibault L et al (2015) Remuneration of authors and performers for the use of their works and the fixations of their performances. European Commission. http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c022cd3c-9a52-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0001.01/DOC_1. Accessed 15 May 2020
Hall C (2019) The Witcher author and CD Projekt end royalties dispute with licensing agreement. https://www.polygon.com/2019/12/20/21032021/the-witcher-author-cd-projekt-legal-battle-royalties-new-contract. Accessed 09 May 2020
Hentsch CH (2019) Die Umsetzung der Urheberrechts-Richtlinie aus Sicht der Games-Branche. Multimedia und recht (MMR):351–355
Hilty R, Moscon V (eds) (2017) Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition. ISBN 978-3-00-057529-7, Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-12, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036787. Accessed 09 May 2020
Houareau R (2019) Die EU-Urheberrechtsrichtlinie aus Sicht der Musikindustrie. Multimedia und Recht (MMR):635–639
Kretschmer M et al (2010) The Relationship Between Copyright and Contract Law. Strategic advisory board for intellectual property policy: a review commissioned by the UK Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP), 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2624945. Accessed 10 May 2020
Lucas-Schloetter A (2017) European Copyright Contract Law: a plea for harmonisation. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law (IIC):897–899
Lucas-Schloetter A (2018) Die urhebervertragsrechtlichen Bestimmungen des Richtlinienvorschlags über das Urheberrecht im digitalen Binnenmarkt. Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht International (GRUR Int):430–433
Lucas-Schloetter A (2019) Copyright contract law. In: Synodinou TE (ed) Pluralism or Universalism in International Copyright Law. Kluwer Law International, pp 597–608
Newman C (2013) An exclusive license is not an assignment: disentangling divisibility and transferability of ownership in copyright. Luisiana Law Rev (La.L.Rev):59–115
Peifer KN (2019) Die urhebervertragsrechtlichen Normen in der DSM-Richtlinie. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM):648–658
Peifer KN (2020) Anpassungsbedarf durch die neue Urheberrechtsrichtlinie. Das neue Urhebervertragsrecht und die Verlegerbeteiligung. Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR):14–23
Priora G (2020) The principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration in the CDSM Directive: a reason for hope? Eur Intellect Prop Rev (EIPR) 42:1–3
Reber N (2016) Comment on Kammergericht, Urt. v. 1.6.2016 – 24 U 25/15, mit Berichtigungsbeschl. v. 6.7.2016 - Fluch der Karibik II. GRUR Int:1079–1081
Schricker G (1992) Urheberrecht zwischen Industrie- und Kulturpolitik. Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR):243–246
Schulze G (2019) Das Urhebervertragsrecht nach Erlass der EU-Richtlinie über das Urheberrecht im digitalen Binnenmarkt. Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR):682–686
Spindler G (2019) Die neue Urheberrechts-Richtlinie der EU (Teil 2). Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis (WRP):951–959
Stieper M (2019) Ein angemessener Interessenausgleich im Verhältnis von Kreativen zu Rechteinhabern und Verwertungsgesellschaften? Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM):393–400
Ulrici B (2008) Vermögensrechtliche Grundfragen des Arbeitnehmerurheberrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Würtenberger G, Freischem S (2019) Stellungnahme des GRUR-Fachausschusses für Urheber- und Verlagsrecht zur Umsetzung der EU-RL im Urheberrecht (DSM-RL [EU] 2019/790 und Online-SatCab-RL [EU] 2019/789). Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR):1140–1166
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Paramythiotis, Y. (2021). Fairness in Copyright Contract Law: Remuneration for Authors and Performers Under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. In: Synodinou, TE., Jougleux, P., Markou, C., Prastitou-Merdi, T. (eds) EU Internet Law in the Digital Single Market. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69582-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69583-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)