Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects and Potential of Extended Collective License Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Remuneration of Copyright Owners

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 27))

  • 883 Accesses

Abstract

Extended collective license systems (ECL systems) have drawn increasing interest from researchers and policymakers in recent years. They are deemed a future solution to create a licensing framework for copyrighted works in mass-use situations. But is this growing interest in those systems really justified? This chapter tries to illuminate the functioning of ECL systems in general and to elucidate why the most elaborated model of them—the ECL regime from the Nordic countries—has worked so smoothly for such a long time. Certain prerequisites are necessary for those systems to “work”, i.e. to facilitate the necessary acts of use by collective agreements and to safeguard the interests of right holders and users. In view of the promising experiences from Scandinavia, it would not be unreasonable to increasingly consider the introduction of ECL systems in order to create a proper legal framework for the digitisation and dissemination of works.

Felix Trumpke is Trainee Lawyer, Higher Regional Court Frankfurt/Main.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Nordic” resp. “Nordic countries” shall be understood as the countries of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland. “Scandinavia”—although rather imprecise—shall be used as a synonym.

  2. 2.

    See e.g. J. Wang (2010); Y. Jiang ( 2013); J. Axhamn / L. Guibault (2011); T. Riis / J. Schovsbo (2010).

  3. 3.

    See e.g. in the UK, 1 October 2014, a new “Extended Collective Licensing Scheme” which came into force (Copyright and Rights in Performances (Extended Collective Licensing) Regulations 2014); see also the draft legislation in China, where an ECL-scheme has been proposed in favour of karaoke bars (Article 63 of the 3nd version of the draft is available at: www.chinalaw.gov.cn/article/cazjgg/201406/20140600396188.shtml).

  4. 4.

    See generally and in more depth on ECL systems the doctoral thesis Exklusivität und Kollektivierung—Das skandinavische Modell der Erweiterten Kollektiven Lizenz (Extended Collective Licensing) by the author of this chapter (forthcoming).

  5. 5.

    The expression “avtalslicens” simply means “contractual license”. In the beginning, the term only referred to a usual collective agreement between a CMO and a user. It later became the name for this specific legal model of the Scandinavian countries.

  6. 6.

    G.W.G. Karnell (1985-86).

  7. 7.

    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.

  8. 8.

    Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works.

  9. 9.

    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.

  10. 10.

    See also below, at Sect. 5.2.

  11. 11.

    M. Ficsor (2002), para. 379, 380.

  12. 12.

    For an excellent overview and introduction of the Nordic ECL system and its main issues, see T. Riis / J. Schovsbo (2010).

  13. 13.

    Sec. 42a (1) s. 1 of the Swedish Copyright Act (CA); Sec. 50 (1) of the Danish CA; Sec. 36 (1) s. 1 of the Norwegian CA; Sec. 26 (1) s. 1 of the Finnish CA; Sec. 15a (1) s. 1 of the Icelandish CA.

  14. 14.

    Sec. 42a (1) s. 1 of the Swedish CA; Sec. 50 (1) of the Danish CA; Sec. 38a (1) s. 1 of the Norwegian CA; Sec. 26 (1) s. 1 of the Finnish CA; Sec. 15a (1) s. 1 of the Icelandish CA.

  15. 15.

    Sec. 50 (4) of the Danish CA; Sec. 38a (1) s. 1 of the Norwegian CA; Sec. 26 (2), (3) of the Finnish CA; Sec. 15a (1) s. 1 of the Icelandish CA. See J. Axhamn / L. Guibault (2011), 30.

  16. 16.

    Sec. 42a (2) s. 1 of the Swedish CA; Sec. 51 (1) of the Danish CA; Sec. 37 (1) of the Norwegian CA; Sec. 26 (4) of the Finnish CA; Sec. 15a (2) s. 3 of the Icelandish CA.

  17. 17.

    Sec. 42a (2) s. 3 of the Swedish CA; Sec. 51 (2) of the Danish CA; Sec. 37 (2) of the Norwegian CA; Sec. 26 (5) of the Finnish CA. The right to individual remuneration allows the author to claim compensation based on the individual use of his work—regardless of the agreement or the distribution plan. However, the right holder has the burden of proof to show that his work has been used to greater extent, which is, in practice, hardly ever possible.

  18. 18.

    See e.g. Sec. 42b (2) of the Swedish CA; Sec. 30a (2) of the Danish CA; Sec. 32 (2) s. 2 of the Norwegian CA; Sec. 16d (2) of the Finnish CA; Sec. 15a (1) s. 2 of the Icelandish CA. If the right holder opts out, the user is not entitled anymore to use the work on the basis of the ECL agreement.

  19. 19.

    Broadcasting organizations have always faced the problem of clearing rights due to the huge amount of works included in their programmes. However, at that time, broadcasting organizations had used unlawfully the works of right holders who were not represented by the CMO. In order to solve this unsatisfactory situation, an ECL provision was added in the Copyright Act.

  20. 20.

    See J. Axhamn / L. Guibault (2011), 29, 43.

  21. 21.

    Sec. 50 (2) Danish CA. See T. Riis / J. Schovsbo (2010), 476-477.

  22. 22.

    Sec. 42 h Swedish CA.

  23. 23.

    Similarly, under a presumption clause the right holder can rebut the presumption.

  24. 24.

    H. Olsson (2009), 354; T. Koskinen-Olsson (2010), 283. On the beginnings of organisational collaboration in Denmark: H.L. Christiansen (1978), 279.

  25. 25.

    T. Koskinen-Olsson (2010), 283, 289.

  26. 26.

    H.L. Christiansen (1978), 280.

  27. 27.

    See also Y. Jiang (2013), 741.

  28. 28.

    T. Riis / J. Schovsbo (2010), 496.

  29. 29.

    See for China: Y. Jiang (2013); J. Wang (2010). See for the U.S.: US Copyright Office (2015), 5, 82; see also P. Samuelson (2011), 697. See for Canada: D. Gervais (2003). See for the Netherlands: P.B. Hugenholtz / S. van Gompel / L. Guibault / R. Obradović (2014), 73.

  30. 30.

    See e.g. S. van Gompel (2007), 669; T. Lüder (2010), 677; S. van Gompel / P.B. Hugenholtz (2010). See also European Commission (2011).

  31. 31.

    Sec. 30a of the Danish CA.

  32. 32.

    To that end, DR has launched a new website (“Bonanza”) from which old newscasts, TV-shows, short films and other programmes can be accessed from any place at any time. Additional content is added every day. Available at: www.dr.dk/Bonanza/index.htm.

  33. 33.

    For this purpose, DR has started two new television channels: While DR Ramasjang covers children’s programmes, DR Kultur focuses on cultural and historical topics.

  34. 34.

    M. Takle (2009).

  35. 35.

    By 2014, 15 % of its collection of about 5 million newspapers, one third of its picture collection, 15 % of its collection of 2.8 million books and more than half of the radio programmes in the collection have been converted into digital format. See Nasjonalbiblioteket (2014), 7.

  36. 36.

    Contract regarding the digital dissemination of books (Bokhylla/The Bookshelf), available at: www.nb.no/pressebilder/Contract_NationalLibraryandKopinor.pdf.

  37. 37.

    Sec. 16a of the Norwegian CA.

  38. 38.

    T. Riis / J. Schovsbo (2010), 472.

  39. 39.

    The term “intermediary” is hardly self-explanatory, as it is used in different contexts, especially in connection with the liability of platform operators. However, for the purpose of this chapter the term “intermediary” shall be understood as a market player that enables decentralized acts that are copyright-relevant either in form of platforms for collaborative interactions between authors or by using copyrighted works while pursuing its own (commercial) objectives. In a similar sense D. Wielsch (2011), 665; see also R.M. Hilty (2010), 125.

  40. 40.

    In the same sense Y. Jiang (2013), 736.

  41. 41.

    Even if collective management is not well developed in a certain field, in particular when it comes to new rights and uses in the digital age, the option for right holders and users to enter into an extended collective agreement should yet be provided. In the new evolving and fast changing online markets, the preferred way of exploitation is often not clear or still being sought. By introducing a general Nordic ECL provision, a voluntary instrument facilitating the collective licensing would be available, which the parties can make use of with regard to certain acts of use if they are willing to do so. As soon as individual licensing becomes the appropriate way of exploitation, the extension of collective agreements will lose their justification. Against this background, an ECL system might even help to explore the boundaries of individual and collective licensing.

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Sec. 47 (2) and Sec. 52 (1) Danish CA. See generally J. Axhamn / L. Guibault (2011), 38.

  43. 43.

    T. Riis / J. Schovsbo (2010), 495.

  44. 44.

    Id.

  45. 45.

    Id., 495-496.

  46. 46.

    This holds true even if the right to opt out is provided. If the right holder opts out, he may get his exclusivity back, but only for the future. See in more depth F. Trumpke (2012), 278.

  47. 47.

    Article 13, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); Article 8, WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT).

  48. 48.

    Article 5 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.

  49. 49.

    F. Trumpke (2012), 265, 275 with further references. See also T. Riis / J. Schovsbo (2010), 482, 484. The same holds true with regard to mandatory collective administration, see S. von Lewinski (2004).

  50. 50.

    At this point, another notable consequence becomes apparent. Thanks to this understanding of the ECL, the Nordic countries have been in the position for years to find answers to certain challenging questions in copyright by using their ECL model, whereas other countries are prevented from finding proper solutions that are in conformity with their legal traditions. See F. Trumpke (2012), 289-290.

  51. 51.

    As far as Europe is concerned this development has also been identified by the European Commission, which clearly strives to facilitate cross-border use of works by promoting transnational or pan-European licensing. See European Commission (2015).

  52. 52.

    L. Guibault (2015) and (2014); J. Axhamn / L. Guibault (2011), 60. Under a “country of transmission rule” a user would only have to obtain a license from the country where the copyrighted work was made available, since the relevant act would be interpreted as taking place in the country of origin resp. transmission. A similar rule was introduced for satellite distribution in Europe (Article 1 Paragraph 2(b) Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission).

  53. 53.

    See e.g. T. Dreier (2013), 296.

  54. 54.

    See the chapter by S. Nérisson.

References

  • Axhamn, J. / Guibault, L. (2011), Cross-border extended collective licensing: a solution to online dissemination of Europe’s cultural heritage?, IViR-Study, available at: www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/292

  • Christiansen, H. L. (1978), Organisationernes betydning inden for ophavsretten, NIR, 279-291

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier, T. (2013), The Wittem Project of a European Copyright Code, in: C. Geiger (Ed.), Constructing European Intellectual Property. Achievements and New Perspectives, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011), Commission Staff Working Paper. Impact Assessment on the Cross-border Online Access to Orphan Works, Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain permitted uses of orphan works, SEC

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015), A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficsor, M. (2002), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, WIPO

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, D. (2003), Application of an Extended Collective Licensing Regime in Canada: Principles and Issues Related to Implementation, Study Prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage, Faculty of Law University of Ottawa, available at: works.bepress.com/daniel_gervais/29/

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gompel, S. (2007), Unlocking the Potential of Pre-Existing Content: How to Address the Issue of Orphan Works in Europe, IIC 2007, 669-702

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gompel, S. / Hugenholtz, P.B. (2010), The Orphan Works Problem: The Copyright Conundrum of Digitizing Large-Scale Audiovisual Archives, and How to Solve it, IViR-Study, available at: www.ivir.nl/publications/vangompel/the_orphan_works_problem.pdf

  • Guibault, L. (2014), D5.4: Report on the effectiveness of licensing systems for clearing content for Europeana use, Europeana Awareness, available at: pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Projects/Project_list/Europeana_Awareness/Deliverables/EA%20D5_4%20EAwareness%20ECLcross-border.pdf

  • Guibault, L. (2015), Cultural Heritage Online? Settle It in the Country of Origin of the Work, JIPITEC 6 (3), 173-191

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R.M. (2010), Kollektive Rechtewahrnehmung und Vergütungsregelungen: Harmonisierungsbedarf und -möglichkeiten, in: M. Leistner (Ed.), Europäische Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums, 123-166, Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholtz, P.B. / van Gompel, S. / Guibault, L. / Obradović, R. (2014), Extended collective licensing: panacee voor massadigitalisering? Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van OCW, IViR-Study, available at: www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/rapporten/2014/09/01/extended-collective-licensing-panacee-voor-massadigitalisering/extended-collective-licensing-panacee-voor-massadigitalisering.pdf

  • Jiang, Y. (2013), Changing Tides of Collective Licensing in China, Michigan State Int. Law Rev. 2013, 729-750

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnell, G.W.G. (1985-86), Extended Collective License Clauses and Agreements in Nordic Copyright Law, Columbia J. of Law & the Arts 1985-86, 73-81

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen-Olsson, T. (2010), Collective Management in the Nordic Countries, in: D. Gervais (Ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 2nd ed., Alphen aan den Rijn, Wolters Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • von Lewinski, S. (2004), Mandatory Collective Administration of Exclusive Rights – A Case Study on its Compatibility with International and EC Copyright Law, e-Copyright Bulletin, UNESCO

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüder, T. (2010), The “orphan works” challenge, GRUR Int. 2010, 677-685

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasjonalbiblioteket (National Library of Norway) (2014), Årsrapport, available at: www.nb.no/content/download/11188/105430/file/Årsrapport%202014_nynorsk.pdf

  • Olsson, H. (2009), Copyright. Svensk och internationell upphovsrätt, 8th ed., Norstedts Juridik

    Google Scholar 

  • Riis, T. / Schovsbo, J. (2010), Extended Collective Licenses and the Nordic Experience: It’s a Hybrid but is it a Volvo or a Lemon?, Columbia J. of Law & the Arts, 471-498

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (2011), Legislative Alternatives to the Google Book Settlement, Columbia J. of Law & the Arts, 697-729

    Google Scholar 

  • Takle, M. (2009), The Norwegian National Digital Library, Ariadne, available at: www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue60/takle

    Google Scholar 

  • Trumpke, F. (2012), The Extended Collective License – A Matter of Exclusivity?, NIR 2012, 264-294

    Google Scholar 

  • US Copyright Office (2015), Orphan Works and Mass Digitization. A Report of the Register of Copyrights, available at: copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

  • Wang, J. (2010), Should China Adopt an Extended Licensing System to Facilitate Collective Copyright Administration: Preliminary Thoughts, EIPR, 283-289

    Google Scholar 

  • Wielsch, D. (2011), Die Zugangsregeln der Intermediäre: Prozeduralisierung von Schutzrechten, GRUR, 665-673

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank Professor Dr. Kung-Chung Liu and Professor Dr. Reto M. Hilty for inspiration and support as well as Professor Dr. Xiuqin Lin and Professor Dr. Lucie Guibault for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Higher Regional Court Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

    Felix Trumpke

Authors
  1. Felix Trumpke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix Trumpke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Singapore Management University , Singapore, Singapore

    Kung-Chung Liu

  2. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Reto M. Hilty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Trumpke, F. (2017). Effects and Potential of Extended Collective License Systems. In: Liu, KC., Hilty, R. (eds) Remuneration of Copyright Owners. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 27. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53809-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53809-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53808-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53809-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation