Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Since time began, or so it seems, there have been disputes about paying royalties in respect of music works or television played in planes, trains and automobiles hotel rooms, pubs, dentists’ practices and now spas.
In this referral from the Czech Republic to the CJEU, OSA, a musical works copyright collecting society, claimed copyright licence fees for the making available of works transmitted by radio or television, in this case in the bedrooms of the spa. Under Czech law, there was an exemption for works made available to patients, when providing health care to them in establishments that provide those services.
Very simply, the case was about whether giving spa ‘patients’ access to broadcast works via television or radio sets by distributing in the patient’s rooms the signal carrying the protected works, was a communication to the public within the InfoSoc Directive, art 3(1). A second question broached whether national law in the form of the exemption from payment of fees under Czech law could be set aside, in a dispute between individuals, as contrary to the InfoSoc Directive, art 3(1). A third question addressing competition law issues—application of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art 102 (TFEU)—is not dealt with in this analysis.
In terms of communication to the public within the meaning of the InfoSoc Directive, art 3(1), the CJEU neatly set out its thinking:
In response to the questions referred, the CJEU ruled that Directive 2001/29/EC, art 3(1) must be interpreted as:
In December 2013, Tom Moody-Stuart, barrister at 8 New Square Chambers, highlighted 2013’s most significant cases and how they have furthered our understanding of CTTP in his IP & IT—a review of 2013’s CTTP developments.
Moody-Stuart said: ‘This [OSA] case concerns the issue of whether the Czech Republic has correctly implemented the Infosoc Directive (2001/29/EC), and in particular whether an exception from copyright infringement in respect of content played on televisions and radio receivers in spa rooms is in accordance with art 5 of the directive. This is of limited interest to anyone other than Czech spa proprietors (who appear very likely to lose the benefit of the exception).’
At the beginning of January 2014, Mark Owen, partner in the trade mark, copyright and media group at Taylor Wessing, provided us in his Communications to the public—a review of 2013’s cases with a reference to the Advocate’s General’s opinion. Owen said:
‘Advocate General Sharpston has given an opinion that a Czech law preventing payment to authors for the communication of their works via TV or radio to patients in bedrooms in a spa was incompatible with the provisions of the Copyright Directive (following the CJEU decision in Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana v Rafael Hoteles SA: C-306/05  ECR I-11519, All ER (D) 103 (Dec))….We do not anticipate that this case will be particularly significant, as it is likely to just clarify Societá Consortile Fonogrqfwi (SCF) v Del Corso C-135/10.’
Moody-Stuart and Owen both made valid points and predictions. Because of the CJEU ruling in OSA, Czech spa proprietors should lose the benefit of the exception and SCF v Del Corso C-135/10 was clarified.
The SCF case is distinguishable from the present case. First of all, SCF was not concerned strictly with authorising or prohibiting communication to the public such as in the InfoSoc Directive, art 3(1), but rather the (compensatory) right to remuneration of performers and producers of phonograms provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC, art 8(2) (on rental right and lending right). But in coming to its decision in SCF, the CJEU cited from its previous art 3(1) judgments.
In SCF the CJEU decided that ‘a dentist who broadcasts phonograms free of charge in his dental practice, for the benefit of his clients and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part, is not making a “communication to the public” for the purposes of the application of art 8(2) of Directive 92/100’. Therefore, such an act of transmission did not entitle the phonogram producers to the payment of remuneration.
Factors that influenced the CJEU were that in dentists’ practices, those receiving the broadcast phonograms are a small and determinate group, who don’t come there for the music (the music is not an additional service from whom the operator expects some benefit) and the music is not profit making.
Businesses in the UK will continue to look for ways to avoid paying for communicating phonograms at their place of work. Lawyers advising them have fairly settled and structured guidance on what constitutes a communication to the public both generally and in respect of users of commercial phonograms.
Collecting societies such as PPL and PRS for Music can be tenacious in pursuing royalties payable for the use of phonograms. The OSA case will be viewed as a victory (not for Czech legislators of course) while the SCF case will serve as a reminder that there are several factors to balance when weighing up whether a user is making a communication to the public (within the meaning of Directive 92/100/EEC, art 8(2)). In SCF the CJEU reminds that ‘an individual approach’ should be taken, and ‘that the situation of a specific user and of all the persons to whom he communicates the protected phonograms must be assessed [and] account must be taken of several complementary criteria, which are not autonomous and are interdependent. Consequently, they must be applied individually and in the light of their interaction with one another, given that in different specific situations, they may be met to varying degrees.’
In the light of this individualistic approach, we can expect collecting societies to continue to bring cases focussing on the concept of ‘public’ in order to further hone what use of phonograms might fall on the side of communication to the public and having to pay royalties.
0330 161 1234