News

On 27^th February the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its judgment in Case C‑351/12, OSA v Léčebné lázně, a reference for preliminary ruling asked by a  Czech court in 2012.  The case concerns a dispute between the Czech authors’ society OSA (so-called collecting societies or CMOs) and a residential spa establishment which gave access to broadcast works through TV and radio sets in the bedrooms of its residents.

In its judgment, the CJEU reaffirmed the crucial role played by the authors’ societies to protect the interests of the rightholders they represent. It confirmed that the obligations provided in article 16 of the 2006 services directive on the freedom to provide services are not applicable to CMOs. The Court also underlined the important role played by OSA as the only authors’ society to protect the rights of all rightholders within the Czech Republic and concluded that the monopoly granted by the Czech legislation to OSA for this kind of usages  is compatible with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since there is no other method allowing the same level of copyright protection.

Today the European Parliament has adopted Ms. Castex’s report on Private Copying Levies with 252 votes in favour, 122 against and 15 abstentions. No change was made in respect of the version adopted by the JURI Committee on the 11^th of February.

GESAC welcomes the adoption of this report as it underlines the virtuous system behind private copying levies and identifies where it needs to evolve to match future consumers’ expectations.

The report also casts a shadow over the UK’s attempts to introduce the private copying exception without any fair compensation for rightholders and the Spanish government’s inexplicable decision to give a 115m€ discount to device manufacturers and importers while further challenging an already stretched public purse and failing to guarantee a drop in prices to consumers.

On behalf of Michel Barnier, Commissioner Šemeta stated that the European Commission will take note of the Castex’s report and especially its points of  divergences from Vitorino’s recommendations published on the 31^st of January 2013.

We applaud the European politicians for their support to this important compensation scheme for creators and for their efforts to strike a political balance, even if some elements could have been better reflected.

———
For further information:
Authors and Performers’ press release on the adoption of the report by the JURI Committee on 11 February

What is CISAC? And what’s its role and function? In this short video you will find all your answers!

CISAC 2014 Video : Watch and download!

CISAC, the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers, works towards increased recognition and protection of creators’ rights. CISAC was founded in 1926 and is a non-governmental, non-profit organization.

Press release –  February 25 2014 –

The Regional Court of Munich today issued a ruling on the legal dispute between GEMA and YouTube concerning the use of GEMA error messages to block videos in Germany. The court ruled that the messages on YouTube illegally denigrate and vilify GEMA.

When users in Germany search for things like music videos and live streams on the Internet platform YouTube, they often see a screen containing either the following error message, or onevery similar:

Dieses Video ist in Deutschland leider nicht verfügbar, da es möglicherweise Musik enthält, für die dieerforderlichen Musikrechte von der GEMA nicht eingeräumt wurden. Das tut uns leid.

(“Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany, as it may contain music for which GEMAhas not granted the necessary music rights. We apologize for this.”)

The Regional Court of Munich ruled today that these and similar messages used by YouTube give “a completely distorted picture of the legal dispute between the parties to the detriment of GEMA.” The court also said that the use of the error messages vilified and denigrated GEMA. It found that the text misleads users by implying that GEMA is blocking the videos, when in fact YouTube is the one responsible.

The background to the dispute is that YouTube does not pay royalties for the use of music on its site, but generates advertising revenue through the music.