Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö “GDA v. TVI and SIC” : Decision of the Supreme Court of Portugal (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça) 24 May 2022 – Case No. 3349/08.0TBOER.L2.S1
Julkaistu Heidelberg : Springer, 2023.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 54(9)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. 1. It makes no sense to conclude that the European legislator imposes a uniform concept of equitable remuneration if the Directive itself allows for differences in the degree of protection given to performers in the different Member States, imposing only minimum conditions of protection such as those laid down in Art. 8(2) of that Directive concerning the single equitable remuneration payable by users who use phonograms published for commercial purposes or reproductions thereof in broadcasts or in any kind of communication to the public. 2. European Union law does not prevent the Member States from conferring a higher level of protection in their domestic law, in particular by including in the calculation of the equitable remuneration the broadcasting and communication to the public on the basis of a fixation authorised by the artist, interpreter or performer. 3. In the calculation of the equitable remuneration outlined in Art. 178(2) of the Portuguese Copyright Code (CDADC), all broadcasts of artistic performances made from a previous fixation authorised by the holders of the corresponding rights must be considered, including the first broadcasts, as the legislator has been explicit in that regard. 4. As regards the initial fees received by the performers for the conclusion of the contract for the provision of services, they may not include in those amounts any remuneration derived from the subsequent exploitation of the performances provided by the broadcasting organisations, since such a provision concerning the performer’s right to remuneration is inadmissible, given that it breaches the principle of the inalienability and irrevocability of the right to remuneration provided for in Art. 178(2) CDADC. This is an unequivocal manifestation of the principle of legal parity under Portuguese law – thus protecting the weaker party in the contract. 5. The Rome Convention, the TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty impose the national treatment of artists, interpreters and performers from foreign countries, nationals of the signatory states to these Conventions, extending the protection that is conferred by Portuguese domestic law to the holders of related rights concerning audiovisual performances, namely for the purposes of the attribution of equitable remuneration provided for in Art. 178(2) of the CDADC.
Yhteisönnimi
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 0018-9855 ; 54(9)
*000 ab a ar
*00122770
*008 s2023 gw e |||| 0|eng |
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*24500$a“GDA v. TVI and SIC” :$bDecision of the Supreme Court of Portugal (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça) 24 May 2022 – Case No. 3349/08.0TBOER.L2.S1 /$cGDA – Cooperativa de Gestão dos Direitos dos Artistas Intérpretes ou Executantes, CRL v. TVI – Televisão Independente, SA and SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicaҫão, SA Directive 2006/115/EC, Art. 8; Portuguese Copyright Code, Arts. 178, 193; Rome Convention, Arts. 12, 19; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996, Arts. 2, 4, 15; TRIPS Agreement, Art. 14.
*264 1$aSpringer,$bHeidelberg :$c2023.
*300 $as. 1407–1417
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v54(9)
*520 $a1. It makes no sense to conclude that the European legislator imposes a uniform concept of equitable remuneration if the Directive itself allows for differences in the degree of protection given to performers in the different Member States, imposing only minimum conditions of protection such as those laid down in Art. 8(2) of that Directive concerning the single equitable remuneration payable by users who use phonograms published for commercial purposes or reproductions thereof in broadcasts or in any kind of communication to the public. 2. European Union law does not prevent the Member States from conferring a higher level of protection in their domestic law, in particular by including in the calculation of the equitable remuneration the broadcasting and communication to the public on the basis of a fixation authorised by the artist, interpreter or performer. 3. In the calculation of the equitable remuneration outlined in Art. 178(2) of the Portuguese Copyright Code (CDADC), all broadcasts of artistic performances made from a previous fixation authorised by the holders of the corresponding rights must be considered, including the first broadcasts, as the legislator has been explicit in that regard. 4. As regards the initial fees received by the performers for the conclusion of the contract for the provision of services, they may not include in those amounts any remuneration derived from the subsequent exploitation of the performances provided by the broadcasting organisations, since such a provision concerning the performer’s right to remuneration is inadmissible, given that it breaches the principle of the inalienability and irrevocability of the right to remuneration provided for in Art. 178(2) CDADC. This is an unequivocal manifestation of the principle of legal parity under Portuguese law – thus protecting the weaker party in the contract. 5. The Rome Convention, the TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty impose the national treatment of artists, interpreters and performers from foreign countries, nationals of the signatory states to these Conventions, extending the protection that is conferred by Portuguese domestic law to the holders of related rights concerning audiovisual performances, namely for the purposes of the attribution of equitable remuneration provided for in Art. 178(2) of the CDADC.
*61024$aEuroopan unioni$0(FI-ASTERI-N)000035482
*650 7$atekijänoikeuslaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$aEU-oikeus $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p20733$2yso/fin
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$akorvaukset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p4223$2yso/fin
*650 7$aesiintyjät$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5325$2yso/fin
*650 7$atelevisio (joukkoviestimet)$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5759
*650 7$aäänitteet$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p12687
*650 7$avideo$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p8368
*651 7$aPortugali$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105409$2yso/fin
*653 $ayleisölle välittäminen
*830 0$aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v54(9)
*852 $hSA-IIC
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.