Presentation: September 12, 2011, the Council of Ministers of the European Union adopted an amendment to the Directive on the term of protection of copyright and related rights (No. 2006/116/EC), bringing 50 to 70 years duration of human rights protection for performers, composers and producers. Back issues of this change.
The original text of the directive issued in 2006 and transcribed into national law by Article 211-4 of the Intellectual Property Code, then took up Article 15 of the Act of July 3, 1985, until when in force. The term of protection of the rights of artists - performers and producers remained so 50 years. The only change to the 1985 Act by the Directive as amended in 2006 concerned the starting point of the term of protection of the rights of producers of phonograms, it varies depending on whether there are copies made publicly available or not.
The Directive, as amended, aligns the term of protection of rights of the copyright, but this alignment remains qualified. Indeed, while the term of protection of copyright begins from the author's death, the protection of rights begins with the publication of the work (70 years post-mortem).
A proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament, presented July 16, 2008, had initially planned to extend the duration of related rights protection to 95 years, duration existing in the United States. Finally nuanced to a period of 70 years in the Directive adopted on 12 September, the main idea was the same: draw the consequences of longer life expectancy, so that many performers and composers who began their career in their youth, have their benefits fall into the public domain during their lifetimes and suffer a consequent loss of income.
This reform has aroused various reactions among the member states of the European Union.
Professionals in the field of music, included in this reform, seem satisfied. Mr. Placido DOMINGO, Chairman of IFPI (International Foundation for Phonography Industry), an organization whose mission is to represent the music production industry worldwide, announced that "the decision to extend the term of protection of human producers in Europe is excellent news for performers. " Mrs. Frances Moore, CEO of IFPI to when she said: "This is a victory for justice. With this decision, the European Union gives artists and producers deserve fair treatment "[1]. In a statement issued the day of adoption, the agency said that more than 38 000 artists and performers had signed the petition for the extension of rights.
However, many opinions do not support this recent reform, fearing the challenges for the public and consumers. This is particularly the view of Mr. Patrick FREMEAUX, Director of the publishing house Frémeaux and Associates, which sees the extension of rights adopted by Brussels "the burial of the cultural diversity of sound heritage (music, spoken , theater, etc.). for all records beginning 1 January 1962. " According to him, although this measure is beneficial to great performers and their record company, "it prohibits all artists whose cultural significance is yet greater than the economic reality - the largest number - can repeat their past works , with the assistance of independent labels or majors. " He explains that many works whose sales are too low for the economy of scale of major companies, will no longer be available in physical form, these do not dismissing their artists.
It is indeed a real issue, which was particularly illustrated by the dispute between Johnny Hallyday at his former label, then wanting it back Masters titles recorded by Universal.
This position, however, must be complemented by the existence of clauses called "catalogs clauses" that allow artists to re-record the works have been the objects of the contract with the producer to a person other than the latter in excess of a defined period. Catalogs clauses are valid as long as the manufacturer will include recordings of the artist in question to the catalog of the company. This means that beyond the period granted, usually 7 to 10 years, the artist is free to register with a new producer titles he had recorded during performance of the previous contract.
It should nevertheless be able to differentiate repeat a recording that will not be possible for twenty more years, that of carrying out re-recordings, possible in the absence of clauses catalogs or beyond its duration. The value of first editions are still generally higher than that of re-registrations.
It is also a difficulty with Françoise Castex, MEP. According to her, "extending the duration of rights is to leave these rights even longer in the hands of industrial drive and logical to place emphasis on the profitability of a logical transfer of assets," she continued, "with the risk that holders of rights decide not to republish the works economically unviable, the ousting of the public domain forever. "
Not surprisingly, consumers were also disappointed by the extension of protection of rights of performers and producers. The European Bureau of Consumers, BEUC believes that "this decision ignores the needs of designers and buyers in the market for online music and hampers innovation."
These negative opinions on the adoption of this reform were highlighted at the time of the debate, while eight states, including Sweden and Belgium, had voted against the amendment of the Directive. For these countries, it appears that extending the protection of neighboring rights enjoy more record producers, as performers. One of the arguments at the heart of the debate was also negative effects that the reform could have long - term accessibility of the material and cultural heritage.