Collective licensing event music4.5 20110622

collec%ve  licensing  

An  “independent”  European  perspec%ve  

Mars  Mertens  /  OurMusic.Biz  

The  death  of  the  collec%ve?  

•  Does  this  mean  back  to  the  individual?  – Collec%ve  >  rights  managers>individual  

•  Level  playing  field  for  various  rights  owners  – High  profile  composers,  new  composers  

•  Collec%ve  is  Collec%ng?  •  Different  role  between  Author’s  society  and  the  collec%ng  body.  

•  Issues  of  exclusive  deals  and  monopolies  

Con%nent  vs  Anglo-­‐America  

•  Anglo  American  Publisher  controls  Mechanical  Right  

•  Online  use  is  combina%on  between  mechanical  rights  and  communica%on  to  the  public  (Performing  Right).    

•  E.g.:  Download    75%  mechanical/25%  performing  

•  E.g.:  Stream      25%  mechanical/75%  performing    

Popularity  Anglo-­‐American  repertoire  

•  Important  market  share  Anglo  American  repertoire  in  con%nental  countries    

•  Local  ar%sts  co-­‐write  repertoire  with  Anglo-­‐American  authors,  joint  copyright.  Mul%ple  Publishers.  

•  Not  only  Hit  Repertoire/  Cultural  diversity  one  of  the  founding  principles  of  European  Union.      

Local  representa%on  

•  Anglo  American  publishers  very  o^en  deal    with  local  sub-­‐publishers.  How  does  this  impact  the  changes  in  direct  Cross-­‐Border  licensing?  

•  The  author’s  share  looses  value  in  the  juggling  system  of  the  reciprocal  agreements  between  socie%es.  

Complex  Copyright-­‐  Mechanical  

•  Mechanical  copyright  (Interac%ve-­‐Non  interac%ve)    

•  Anglo  American  publishers  withdraw  rights    •  Mechanical  copyright  European  socie%es  – Reciprocal  Representa%on  agreements  for  E.E.A.?  CISAC  CASE  was  about  Performing  Rights!  (2008)    

•  Mechanical  copyright  Non-­‐  European  socie%es  – Exis%ng  agreements  not  on  EEA  basis  but  by  country.  

Complex  Copyright-­‐  Performing  

•  Communica%on  to  the  public:  Performing  copyright  (Interac%ve-­‐Non  interac%ve)    

•  US  performing  Rights  Org:  ASCAP,  BMI,  SESAC    •  Performing  copyright  European  socie%es  – All  Reciprocal  Representa%on  agreements  for  E.E.A.  renewed  a^er  CISAC  CASE?  (July  2008)    

•  Mechanical  copyright  Non-­‐European  socie%es  – Exis%ng  agreements  not  on  EEA  basis  but  by  country.  

New  Digital  Music  Services  

•  Pan  European  licensing  impossible  for  start  ups.    

•  Roll  Out  Country  by  Country.    •  Complexity:  – what  to  pay  –  to  whom  –  for  which  repertoire?  

Tariff  

•  The  tariff  for  Pan-­‐  European  licensing:  – No  fixed/set  price  per  usage  across  Europe  – O^en  set  by  Tariff  Country  of  Des%na%on  – Split  between  Mechanical/Performing  income  might  differ  in  various  countries.  

•  No  harmonisa%on  of  defini%ons/clauses  in  contracts.  Eg  status  Temporary  Download?  

•  The  Tariff  should  be  balanced  between  author  and  user  to  make  innova%on  possible.  

BUILDING  A    NEW  STRUCTURE    DDEX  -­‐  GRD  -­‐  IMR  -­‐  DCE  

•  Digital  CrossBorder  licensing  asks  for  new  standards  and  databases  

•  DDEX:  standards  metadata/  repor%ng  •  Global  Repertoire  DataBase:  musicworks  •  Interna%onal  Music  Registry:WIPO  ini%a%ve  •  UK:  Digital  Copyright  Exchange?    

New  Structures  

•  A  solu%on  to  the  problem?  •  Systems  are  s%ll  under  control  of  the  “old”  players.  

•  Open  Data?  Including  Non  Society  works  •  Important  to  have  an  efficient  transparent  system  with  direct  distribu%on  to  rightsholders    

Closing  Remarks  

•  The  collec%ve  is  s%ll  important  

•  New  regula%ons  from  EC  needed,  not  only  recommenda%ons  

•  “One  Stop  Shop”  solu%ons  will  benefit  the  European  market  

Thank  you  for  your  ahen%on  Connect  and  Share:  

Mars  Mertens  @MarsM  /  [email protected]