The document discusses three European instruments aimed at facilitating cross-border rights clearance for cultural heritage institutions: the Memorandum of Understanding on out-of-commerce works, the Orphan Works Directive, and the proposed directive on collective management of copyright for online music. While these instruments aim to simplify cross-border use of works, their implementation remains uncertain and they may not be fully compatible, potentially causing fragmentation. Cultural heritage institutions also still lack a single, comprehensive system for clearing rights across borders.
1. European cross-border rights clearance
Lucie Guibault and Manon Oostveen
2nd Europeana Workshop, 14 June 2013
Institute for Information Law
2. Contents
Regulatory instruments
Cross-border regimes
Compatibility
Workflow of cultural heritage institutions
Conclusion
Eruopean Cross-border rights clearance 2
3. Research question
Will the work of cultural heritage institutions
become easier by the introduction of the MoU,
the Orphan Works Directive and the Directive
on collective management and multi-territorial
licensing of online musical works?
Are the cross-border provisions of the three
instruments compatible with each other?
European Cross-border rights clearances 3
4. The Instruments
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on out-
of-commerce works
Directive 2012/28/EU on certain permitted uses
of orphan works
Proposal for a directive on collective
management of copyright and related rights and
multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical
works for online uses
Type the footer here 4
6. MoU
Rights clearance based on extended collective
licensing
Scope: multi-territory mono-repertoire
(extended effect limited to national repertoire)
No direct extra-territorial effect
Possibility to limit scope of extended effect in
types of uses and territory
European Cross-border rights clearances 6
7. Orphan Works Directive
Article 4
Mutual recognition of orphan work status
A work or phonogram which is considered an orphan work
according to Article 2 in a Member State shall be considered an
orphan work in all Member States. That work or phonogram
may be used and accessed in accordance with this Directive in
all Member States. This also applies to works and phonograms
referred to in Article 2(2) in so far as the rights of the non-
identified or non-located rightholders are concerned.
European Cross-border rights clearances 7
8. Draft Directive on Multi-territorial
licensing
Extra-territorial effect based on passport
system
One CMO gives mandate of representation
to another CMO
Likelihood of concentration of the market to a
few super CMOs
Reciprocal agreements between CMOs still
necessary
Type the footer here 8
10. Compatibility Issues
Form and scope of implementation of
instruments still uncertain
Potential for incompatibility between regimes at
national and cross-border level because of
possible co-existence of ECL for books/articles
and Orphan Works status
Type the footer here 10
13. Workflow of a CHI
No single clear and comprehensive system to
clear rights
Potential problems of
Restrictions
Fragmentation
Implementation
Type the footer here 13
14. Solution?
Conclusion of agreements between CMOs and
CHIs for cross-border use of material
Problem: not all sectors of copyright are equally
organized to allow representative agreements
to be concluded
Other solutions????????
Type the footer here 14
15. Thank you very much!
For more information
Lucie Guibault
L.Guibault@uva.nl
or
Manon Oostveen
manon.oostveen@student.uva.nl
European Cross-border rights clearances 15
Editor's Notes
MoU: addressed to Member States and stakeholders In France, the Act essentially gives commercial publishers the right to publish out of commerce books libraries only have the right to make available after a period of 10 years of non-exploitation by any commercial publisher. Libraries are not the main beneficiaries of this instrument. Same remark with regards to Proposal for a Directive on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing.