- Court of Justice—audiovisual works are not phonograms under the Rental and Lending Rights Directive (Atresmedia Corporación de Medios de Comunicación v AGEDI)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
TMT analysis: The Court of Justice has ruled on whether the communication to the public of an audiovisual work which incorporates a phonogram, so that the works are synchronised, triggers the right to claim equitable compensation under the Rental and Lending Rights Directive. The definition of a phonogram excludes visual features of the work, meaning the synchronised work being communicated to the public could not be a phonogram. The issue arose in relation to a claim by Spanish collecting societies to equitable compensation from a Spanish TV broadcaster that had communicated an audiovisual work to the public which incorporated a phonogram. The incorporation of the phonogram into the audiovisual work had, itself, been authorised by the relevant rightsholder. Written by Joshua Marshall, senior associate at Fieldfisher LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial