Related Rights - Neighbouring Rights

Print this page



IPPT20231123, CJEU, Seven.One v Corint

Fair compensation for private use of broadcasts broadcasting organisations. Article 5(2)(b) Copyright Directive 2001 precludes national legislation which excludes broadcasting organisations, whose fixations of broadcasts are reproduced by natural persons for private use and for non-commercial ends, from the right to the fair compensation provided for in that provision, in so far as those organisations suffer potential harm which cannot be classified as ‘minimal’. 


IPPT20230525, CJEU, AKM v Canal+

Consent by holders of copyright and related rights is required to be obtained only in the Member State in which the program-carrying signals are introduced into the communication chain running to the satellite. Such communication to the public by satellite is deemed to take place only in the Member State in which the program-carrying signals are introduced into the communication chain running to the satellite. It would be contrary to the objective of Directive 93/98 for a satellite package provider to have to obtain consent from the relevant holders of copyright and related rights in other Member States as well.




IEPT20220908, CJEU, RTL Television

No exclusive right for broadcasting organisations regarding cable retransmission. Cable retransmission limited to retransmission by an operator of a classic cable network. No “cable retransmission” in case of the simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged distribution of television or radio programmes broadcast by satellite and intended for reception by the public, where that retransmission is carried out by a person other than a cable operator, within the meaning of that directive, such as a hotel, does not constitute cable retransmission.




IPPT20201028, CJEU, BY v CX

Submission of non-physical copies of a work not distribution to the public but communication to the public within the meaning of the Copyright Directive: As a preliminary point, it must be noted that it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the photograph at issue in the main proceedings was sent by electronic mail to the court seised, in the form of an electronic copy. The transmission by electronic means of a protected work to a court, as evidence in legal proceedings between individuals, cannot be regarded as a ‘communication to the public’: the protected work is received by a clearly defined and closed group of persons exercising public service functions in a court, and not to an indefinite number of potential recipients.


IPPT20200908, CJEU, RAAP v PPI

The concept of 'relevant performers' in Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property is to be interpreted in a uniform manner throughout the Union and precludes a Member State from excluding artists who are nationals of States not belonging to the EEA with the sole exception of artists who have their residence or domicile in the EEA and those who have made their contribution to a phonogram in the EEA: Article 8(2) should be interpreted in accordance with the WPPT and no reservation has been made pursuant to Article 15(3) WPPT, the obligation referred to in Article 8(2) to provide for an equitable remuneration to be shared between the producer of the phonogram and the performing artist shall apply when the use of the phonogram or a reproduction thereof takes place in the Union: it shall not be made a condition that the performer or the producer of the phonogram possesses the nationality of the EEA Member State or has their domicile in this Member State, nor that the place where the creative or artistic work is performed belongs to the territory of a Member State of the EEA. Article 8(2) of the Directive precludes a Member State from restricting the right to a single equitable remuneration in the case of performers and producers of phonograms who are nationals of third countries that have made a reservation under Article 15(3) WPPT with regard to the recognition of the right to a single equitable remuneration. Restrictions may, however, be introduced by the Union legislature if they meet the requirements of Article 52(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: need to preserve a level playing field for participation in the trade in recorded music is an objective of general interest that may justify a restriction of the neighbouring right set out in Article 8(2) of the Directive with regard to nationals of a third State which does not or only partly grant that right. Article 8(2) of the Directive precludes that the remuneration is only to be paid to the phonogram producer without having to share it with the performer: remuneration has the essential characteristic that it is shared and such an exclusion would undermine the undermine the aim of the Directive.


IPPT20200611, CJEU, Brompton Bicycle

Articles 2 to 5 of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the copyright protection provided for therein applies to a product whose shape is, at least in part, necessary to obtain a technical result: the product must be an original work resulting from intellectual creation. The existence of other possible shapes which can achieve the same technical result is not decisive, the national court has to verify this and the reffering court has to take accoun of all the relevant aspects of the present case, as they existed when that subject matter was designed, irrespective of the factors external to and subsequent to the creation of the product.




IPPT20190729, CJEU, Pelham

Phonogram producer can prevent under Article 2(c) Copyright Directive another person from taking a sound sample, even if very short ("sampling"), of his or her work for another phonogram, unless that sample is included in the phonogram in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear. Concept of ‘copy’ (Article 9(1)(b) Rental Directive) must, according to its preambule, be interpreted consistently with the same concept as it is used in the Geneva Convention. Reproduction of all or a substantial part of a phonogram constitutes a 'copy'. Member State cannot, in its national law, lay down an exception or limitation, other than those provided for in Article 5, to the phonogram producer’s right provided for in Article 2(c) of that directive. Use of a sound sample taken from a phonogram (sampling) may amount to a "quotation", on the basis of Article 5(3)(d) Copyright Directive, provided that that use has the intention of entering into dialogue with the work from which the sample was taken. Concept of ‘quotations’ (Article 5(3)(d) Copyright Directive) does not apply when it is not possible to identify the work concerned by the quotation in question. Article 2(c) Copyright Directive constitutes full harmonisation.




IPPT20161110, CJEU, VOB v Stichting Leenrecht

Lending within the meaning of Article 6(1) Rental Directive covers the lending of a digital copy: in compliance with one copy – one user. Member States may require that the digital copy of the book must have been put into circulation by a first sale or other transfer of ownership of that copy by the holder of the right of distribution to the public or with his consent. Public lending exception precluded if the copy was obtained from an unlawful source.



IPPT20140327, CJEU, UPC Telekabel v Constantin Film
ISP's: a person who makes protected subject-matter available to the public on a website without the agreement of the rightholder, is using the services of the internet service provider of the persons accessing that subject-matter


IPPT20140904, CJEU, European Commission v Council of European Union

Annulment decision of the Council of the EU on the participation of both EU and Member States to negotiate on the Convention Council of Europe about the protection of neighbouring rights from broadcasters. Exclusive power of the Union (Article 3(2) TFEU): concerns a large part of the area covered by common rules of the Union and these negotiations may affect the common rules of the Union or change the schope of it. El 3(a) TFEU): right to rebroadcast, right of communcation to the public, the protection of pre-broadcast, program-carrying signals and the respect of the related rights of broadcasting organisations.




IPPT20120315, CJEU, SCF v Del Corso

“Communication to the public” does not cover broadcasting, free of charge, of phonograms within private dental practices, enjoyed by patients without any active choice on their part. According to European law, individuals may not rely directly on TRIPS, WPPT and the Rome Convention. Concept of “communication to the public” must be interpreted in the light of TRIPS, WPPT and the Rome Convention.


IPPT20120315, CJEU, PPI v Ireland

Hotel operator (i) which provides televisions and/or radios is a user making a communication to the public of a phonogram which may be played in a broadcast and is obliged to pay equitable remuneration, and (ii) which provides other apparatus and phonograms which may be played on or heard from such apparatus is also a user making a communication to the public of a phonogram and is obliged to pay equitable remuneration. Hotel operator does not fall under the private use exception




IPPT20110616, CJEU, Thuiskopie v Opus

Fair compensation for reproduction on a private basis: Final user is responsible for paying fair compensation for reproduction on a private basis. System of private copying levy open to Member States when able to pass on that levy in price paid by final user. With system of private copying levies it is for the Member State to ensure authors actually receive fair compensation. Interpretation of national law to allow recovery from person acting on a commercial basis, if recovery from purchaser is impossible, permitted.




IPPT20090120, ECJ, Sony v Falcon

Rights of phonogram producers: The holder of the rights, who is a national of a non-Member State, enjoys protection in a situation where the work or subject-matter at issue was, on 1 July 1995, protected as such in at least one Member State under that Member State’s national legislation.




IPPT20050714, ECJ, Europe 1 v SPRE and GVL

Directive 93/83 does not preclude the fee for phonogram use being governed not only by the law of the Member State in whose territory the broadcasting company is established but also by the legislation of the Member State in which, for technical reasons, the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located.



IPPT20030206, ECJ, Sena v NOS

The concept of equitable remuneration must be interpreted uniformly in all the Member States; it is for each Member State to determine, in its own territory, the most appropriate criteria. A proper balance has to be achieved between the interests of performing artists and producers in obtaining remuneration for the broadcast of a particular phonogram, and the interests of third parties in being able to broadcast the phonogram on terms that are reasonable.




IPPT19980428, ECJ, Metronome Musik

Article 1(1) Council Directive 92/100/EEC on exclusive rental right deemed valid.




IPPT19931020, ECJ, Phil Collins

The principle of non-discrimination precludes a Member State from making the grant of an exclusive right subject to the requirement that the person concerned be a national of that State.