For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Tuesday, 14 February 2006

URALEX - HELP NEEDED; RESALE ROYALTIES - A JUST REWARD?


Ou la-la! Uralex, une French affaire

L'IPKat a trouvé ces Conclusions de L’Avocat Général Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer dans l'affaire C-169/05 Uradex SCRL contre Union Professionnelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution contre Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision. Malheureusement, ce n'est pas en Anglais. Mais on peut le lire en francais ...

Right: no, this isn't Babelfish - it's the first result you get if you search 'Uralex' on Google Image.

If anyone can tell the IPKat what it's about, he'll be thrilled. The punchline is that:

"L’article 9, paragraphe 2, de la directive 93/83/CEE du Conseil du 27 septembre 1993 relative à la coordination de certaines règles du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins du droit d’auteur applicables à la radiodiffusion par satellite et à la retransmission par câble, permet à l’organisme réputé être chargé de gérer les droits des titulaires qui n’ont pas confié expressément la gestion de ces droits à une société en particulier, d’autoriser l’exploitation de leurs œuvres et de leurs prestations".
According to Babelfish this means:
"Article 9, paragraph 2, of directive 93/83/CEE of the Council of September 27, 1993 relating to the coordination of certain rules of the royalty and the rights close to the royalty applicable to broadcasting by satellite and the retransmission by cable, allows the famous organization being charged to manage the rights of the holders who expressly did not entrust the management of these rights to a company in particular, to authorize the exploitation of their oeuvres and their services".
Further explanation will be appreciated.


Is this a just reward?

Here's the text of a notice published today on the UK's Patent Office website:

"UK Artists’ Creativity Rewarded

British artists will receive well-deserved reward for their creativity through the introduction of regulations giving them the right to a royalty on the re-sale of their works, Minister for Science and Innovation Lord Sainsbury said today.

From today, when an artist's work is re-sold on the UK art market for the equivalent of €1,000 or more, he or she will receive a royalty of up to four per cent of the sale price.

Lord Sainsbury said: "The artists'’ re-sale right regulations ensure a just reward for living British artists’ creativity while protecting the valuable UK art market."

The regulations have been introduced to comply with the EU Artist’s Re-sale Right Directive.

"The balanced Government approach will benefit struggling artists without placing a heavy administrative burden on the art market and will minimise the risk that sales would be driven offshore."

The directive required the Government to set the threshold at which the royalty is paid at between €0 and €3,000.

Eighty-eight per cent of works by living artists sold in the UK in the €1,000 to €3,000 price range in 2003-2004 were by British artists.

To protect the most valuable sector of the UK art market, which is works by deceased artists, the UK Government successfully negotiated a delay in the application of the royalty to works by deceased artists until 2010, with a possible extension to 2012, and will seek to extend it indefinitely".

The IPKat is amused to see the sums in question described as a just reward. He reckons that artists will consider the sums in question derisory, while he knows that the art sale industry regards them as a monstrous imposition. Merpel asks, how many votes will British artists be casting at the next election?

British artists here, here and here
Saatchi Gallery here
White Cube here
Recipes for shark here and here

2 comments:

Jeremy said...

Chris Stothers writes: It appears that the AG is using the language of the reference (which is available in English) and essentially replying "no, a collecting society DOES have the right to refuse or allow a cable operator to retransmit the work even where it is mandated only to manage the pecuniary aspects of the rights". It sounds like the Belgian rules provide for a default collecting society to exercise rights if they are not assigned to any particular collecting society.

Jeremy said...

Veronica Barresi (White & Case) adds her version: "Article 9, paragraph 2, of Council Directive 93-83-CEE of 27 September 1993 regarding the harmonization of certain rules of copyright and neighbouring rights, applicable to satellite bradcasting and to cable re-transmission, allows the body which is responsible for managing the rights of righholders who have not expressely authorized a particular company to manage these rights (I guess this means a collecting society), to authorize the exploitation of their works and performances”. Many thanks, Veronica.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':