Cc-europe mailing list

[Joachim Losehand <joachim AT losehand.at>]

Hello everybody,

here's a report from Norway and their model and best practice of ECL:
<http://www.archivia.at/videos/>
A National Library for the 21th Century – Content and services in The Digital
Library
A presentation by Roger Jøsevold (Nationalbibliothek Norwegen, Oslo).

In Austria, we try to establish an ECL-regime and in 2014 we discussed legal
solutions:
<http://freie-radios.at/publikationen.html> (German, English forthcoming @
<http://livingarchives.eu/>)

Best, Joachim.



> Timothy Vollmer <tvol AT creativecommons.org> hat am 26. September 2015 um 
> 23:48
> geschrieben:
> 
> 
> Thank you to everyone who responded--Gisle, Fatima, Tarmo, Silvia, Paul. My
> apologies on just getting back to this issue now, but your information will
> be valuable as we draft this response.
> Thanks again,
> timothy
> 
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Tarmo Toikkanen <tarmo.toikkanen AT aalto.fi>
> wrote:
> 
> > Some notes from Finland:
> >
> > The Finnish copyright agencies often make contracts with artists and
> > require exclusive rights. A recent review made clear, that such exclusive
> > rights (which will prevent CC licensing) are not required by Finnish law 
> > or
> > are even required for the agencies to perform their work.
> >
> > As this has become clear, and an increasingly problematic for artists to
> > build their online presences, things are changing. Recently the music
> > artists' agency in Finland (Teosto) has allowed individual artists (after 
> > a
> > written request) to self-license some of their works for non-profit use 
> > and
> > limited for-profit use.
> >
> > It seems in many European countries collective license schemes are in
> > place, but the contracts the agencies make with artists are too 
> > restrictive
> > (requiring exclusive rights to all past and future works).
> >
> > Many legal cases have concluded that preventing the artist from managing
> > their works may be considered to be misuse of a dominant market power. The
> > general gist seems to be that requiring exclusive rights should have
> > exceptional and well-founded grounds. An agency should not pose
> > restrictions on its author customers that are not absolutely necessary.
> > Some examples:
> >
> > EU:
> >
> >    - Banghalter & de Homem Christo / SACEM ("Daft Punk Decision")
> > 
> >   
> > <http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_37219>
> >     (COMP/37.219)
> >    Mandate relationship between right holders and collecting societies
> >
> > Ireland:
> >
> > Irish Competition Authority, Decision No. 326 of 18 May 1994, Notification
> > No. CA/2/91E – Performing Right Society and individual creators/publishers
> > (Assignment of Copyright), para. 81; Decision No. 445 of 15 December 1995,
> > Notification No. C/2/95 – Irish Music Rights Organisation/Writers,
> > Notification No. CA/3/95 – Irish Music Rights Organisation/Publishers (Non
> > Corporate); Notification No. CA/4/95 – Irish Music Rights
> > Organisation/Publishers (Limited Company), para. 37.
> >
> > Poland:
> >
> > UOKiK, Decision of 16 July 2004, Case RWA‐21/2004, Annual Report 2006, p.
> > 20. 860
> > and
> > CCCP, Decision of 9 January 2006, Case XVII Ama 84/04, Annual Report 2006,
> > p. 20.
> >
> > US:
> > In the US, the ASCAP consent decree explicitly prevents ASCAP from
> > claiming exclusive rights
> > from right‐holders. ( Para. IV. A. of the ASCAP Consent Decree, supra n.
> > 737)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04/09/15 02:01, Fátima São Simão wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > I've been researching about this recently and came across a couple of very
> > interesting articles on the subject:
> >
> > - Economics of Copyright Collecting Societies and Digital Rights: Is There
> > a Case for a Centralised Digital Copyright Exchange? (about a similar
> > initiative going on in the UK):
> > <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2216165>
> > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2216165
> >
> > - Competition Policy, Patent Pools and Copyright Collectives:
> > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2024560
> >
> > You can find more here: http://www.serci.org/rerci.html
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> >
> > Best,
> > Fátima
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 September 2015 at 23:17, Timothy Vollmer <tvol AT creativecommons.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all:
> >>
> >> Looking for some information from you the operation of extended
> >> collective licensing in Europe. Can you help?
> >>
> >> The U.S. Copyright Office is soliciting comments
> >> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/09/2015-14116/mass-digitization-pilot-program-request-for-comments>
> >> on a plan to introduce extended collecting licensing for certain mass
> >> digitization activities. Several library associations and NGOs (including
> >> CC and CC USA) are planning on responding to the request for information.
> >> The Copyright Office has apparently concluded that the introduction of
> >> extended collective licensing in U.S. law would hel*p "to facilitate the
> >> work of those who wish to digitize and provide full access to certain
> >> collections of books, photographs, or other materials for nonprofit
> >> educational or research purposes."*
> >>
> >> Many of us think that those conducting mass digitization in the U.S.
> >> already have a solid basis for digitizing works under fair use--supported
> >> by recent case law. It's less clear that "providing full access to 
> >> certain
> >> collections" would be covered under fair use, although the tempering of 
> >> the
> >> use to "nonprofit educational or research purposes" seems leans in the
> >> direction of activities covered under fair use anyway.
> >>
> >> The Copyright Office said it wants to hear about the experience of ECL
> >> schemes "in place or being discussed in other countries." So we are 
> >> asking
> >> around--specifically in Europe because we know there are some ECL
> >> frameworks already in place.
> >>
> >> We've already heard from the Dutch (thanks Lucie and Paul!). As I
> >> understand it neither the InfoSoc nor the Orphan Works Directive provide 
> >> an
> >> adequate legal framework with which to adequately entertain mass
> >> digitization and acts of making available in this context. The takeaway 
> >> is
> >> that without being able to rely on an exception, then the only reasonable
> >> option is to explore extended collective licensing.
> >>
> >> *Is this your experience? What is your experience with the ECLs? Are they
> >> effective for making available some types of collections over others? How
> >> are CC licensed works handled within the scheme, if at all? *
> >>
> >> Thanks so much,
> >>
> >> timothy
> >>
> >> cc: Diane Peters, Meredith Jacob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Timothy Vollmer
> >> Public Policy Manager, Creative Commons
> >> Get Creative Commons Updates <http://bit.ly/commonsnews>
> >> http://bit.ly/commonsnews
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CC-Europe mailing list
> >> CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CC-Europe mailing
> > listCC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tarmo Toikkanen
> > researcher, tarmo.toikkanen AT aalto.fi
> > Learning Environments research group, http://legroup.aalto.fi
> > Creative Commons Finland, http://creativecommons.fi
> > Aalto University, http://aalto.fi
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Timothy Vollmer
> Public Policy Manager, Creative Commons
> Get Creative Commons Updates http://bit.ly/commonsnews
> _______________________________________________
> CC-Europe mailing list
> CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe