2020 years 9 month 8 day, European Court of Justice (CJEU) Announcement regulation C-265/19 adjudication, The case is contested by two Irish collective management organisations: Recording artist, Actors and performers Company (RAAP) , And phonograph makers (Ireland) company (PPI) . The former represents performers' rights, The latter represents the rights of the producer. 　　

The two agencies had reached an agreement, by PPI Responsible for uniform collection and with RAAP Share in the revenue derived from the dissemination of phonograms to the public through radio broadcasting, namely "The European Parliament and the European Commission concerning the lease of copyright in the field of intellectual property, Instructions for lending rights and other specific rights (The first 2006/115/EC No) " (Hereinafter referred to as "European Union regulation 2006/115/EC Number instruction" ) The first 8 (2) The remuneration specified in this article. 　　

The cause of the dispute is, PPI Refuse to RAAP Pay the agreed share of the relevant remuneration, The reason is that "Copyright law of Ireland" stipulation, Non-european economic area (EEA) Performers of nationals or residents of member States, To it "Recorded outside the European Economic Area" Performance piece, There is no right to remuneration. PPI Think that, For specific countries (In this case, the United States) The performers paid in violation "Copyright law of Ireland" The prescribed principle of reciprocity, Because that particular country granted Irish performers the right to fair remuneration only to a very limited extent. 　　

obviously, RAAP Disagree with this explanation, The nationality or place of residence of the performer has nothing to do with whether he or she can share in the proceeds, because "European Union regulation 2006/115/EC Number instruction" The first 8 (2) The article makes no such restriction. 　　

The European Court of Justice boiled down the dispute to four issues. 　　

The first and second questions are summed up as, In accordance with the "World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on Performance and Phonograms (WPPT) " Stipulation of, "European Union regulation 2006/115/EC Number instruction" The first 8 (2) Article should be read as, Member States are prohibited from restricting the right of performers who are not their nationals or residents to receive such remuneration? 　　

The European Court of Justice first noted, "European Union regulation 2006/115/EC Number instruction" The first 8 (2) The article does not set any limits on the above issues, And added that, From the preamble to the directive No 5 to 7 The expression of the paragraph, Explanation of related concepts "It shall not be in conflict with international conventions" , Have to "World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on Performance and Phonograms (WPPT) " Subject to regulations, That is, Member States shall protect performers and persons who are nationals of any Contracting Party to this Treaty (Sound recording) The right to remuneration of the producer. Therefore, European court of justice ruling, The legislatures of Member States shall not limit the right to a lumpsum reasonable remuneration to nationals of Member States of the European Economic Area, Otherwise, the rights of third-country nationals would be undermined. 　　

then, The European Court of Justice analyses the third question, If the law of a third country restricts the rights of nationals of EU member States, Can the Member State accordingly restrict the enjoyment of nationals of the third country "European Union regulation 2006/115/EC Number instruction" The first 8 (2) The rights provided for in this article? 　　

The European Court of Justice recognized, Such a reservation may affect performers in EU Member States and corresponding third countries (Sound recording) Maker's position, But consider the principle of reciprocity enshrined in international treaties, "It is in the public interest to maintain a level playing field in the trade of recorded music, Can be a reasonable reason for restricting copyright-related rights" . 　　

however, The European Court of Justice stated that, Although the reasons above are sound, On the basis of "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" The first 52. 1 Provision of article, It is up to the EU, not its member states, to set such limits. 　　

Therefore, Even if a third country makes a reservation on the right to reasonable remuneration, Nor could member states decide for themselves to impose restrictions. Only the EU legislature has the power to make such decisions. 　　

The fourth question is this, "European Union regulation 2006/115/EC Number instruction" The first 8 (2) Whether the article prohibits limiting the scope of the right holder to obtain reasonable remuneration (Sound recording) producer, It is not to be shared with the performers? The European Court of Justice simply pointed out, Such restrictions are prohibited. 　　

The author thinks that, The decision provides a degree of certainty. First of all, Such as is involved in this case "Copyright law of Ireland" The existence of regulations such as contested clauses, It shows that European intellectual property legislation still lacks uniformity, Only if there is insufficient coordination, There will be norms that are fundamentally contrary to the content of the EU directive. 　　

secondly, The case also highlights the reasons behind the inequality in the market for recorded music. The European Court of Justice's interpretation, though, seems to have provided a clear conclusion, It is still hard to imagine EU lawmakers leading the legislative reforms, It would be as discussed in this case, Impose any restrictions on the right of third-country nationals to remuneration. And if the current pattern continues, Compared to countries like the United States, The EU will continue to be on an unequal footing in this area. Although in the global market (Music market) The imposition of such restrictions can be controversial, However, the provisions of the principle of reciprocity may apply, Provide temporary solutions to these kinds of inequalities. 　　

compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel　　source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights