Copyright Contract in Germany

Copyright Contract in Germany in Europe

In light of the difficulty of many authors to derive a decent income from the exploitation of
their works, policy makers in the field of copyright may decide to intervene and recalibrate
the power relations between authors and publishers. Seeking to strengthen the bargaining
power of authors, the Dutch legislator, for instance, adopted a specific Copyright Contract Act in July 2015.

As in the Netherlands, the German law maker conferred upon authors a right to fair remuneration (Dietz (2005), 20; Schricker (2002), 797; Schack (2002), 853). By virtue of the German Copyright Contract Act, authors have the right to demand the modification of a contract about a work’s exploitation that fails to offer a fair remuneration for the grant of the entitlement to exploit a work (§ 32(1) of the German Copyright Act). In negotiations of a representative association of authors with an individual exploiter, or an association of exploiters, it is possible to establish “common remuneration rules” that are to be deemed fair by virtue of the law (§§ 32(2) and 36 of the German Copyright Act).

For cases in which no common remuneration rules are available, the German legislation indicates that a remuneration can be considered fair when it complies with the remuneration which, according to the customary practices in the sector concerned, an author could reasonably expect in light of the scope and reach of the granted right, the duration and time of the use, and other circumstances relevant to the individual case (§ 32(2) of the German Copyright Act).

Although the German Copyright Contract Act has now been in effect for more than 10 years,
it has not led to a general improvement of the income situation of authors. See the recent analyses by Maas 2016, 209, and Peifer 2015, 1-2; as well as earlier comments by Schulze
2005, 828, which in principle, were shared by Dietz 2007, 465. However, Dietz qualified the first common remuneration rule that had been established under the new German legislation as a success of the system as a whole. See Dietz 2007, 473–474

In practice, the impact of legislation in the field of copyright contract law seems rather modest. Not surprisingly, there is a current discussion about an amendment of the German system which focuses on proposals to further clarify the concept of “fairness”. For example, it has been
proposed to make it clear that a fair remuneration, in principle, requires more than a one-time
“buy-out” payment. Instead, the author should continuously receive a share of the revenue
accruing from the exploitation of his work (see Peifer (2016), 8; Kreile/Schley (2015), 837, for a discussion of a proposed new sentence in § 32(2) of the German Copyright Act).

By Martin Senftleben, Maximilian Kerk, Miriam Buiten and Klaus Heine.

Resources

Further Reading

  • Bell, T.W. (2008). The Specter of Copyism v. Blockheaded Authors: How User-Generated
    Content Affects Copyright Policy”, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law
    10, 841.
  • Benkler, Y. (1999). Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on
    Enclosure of the Public Domain. New York University Law Review 74, 355.
  • Buckley, B. (2008). SueTube: Web 2.0 and Copyright Infringement”, Columbia Journal of
    Law and the Arts 31, 235.
  • Dietz, A. (2005). Copyright Contract Law According to the New German Legislation and
    Practice. Tijdschrift voor auteurs-, media- en informatierecht, 20.
  • Dreier, T. (2001). Balancing Proprietary and Public Domain Interests: Inside or Outside of
    Proprietary Rights?’, in: R. Dreyfuss/D. Leenheer-Zimmerman/H. First (eds.), Expanding the
    Boundaries of Intellectual Property. Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Economy. Oxford:
    Oxford University Press, 295.
  • Dusollier, S. (2007). Droit d’auteur et protection des œuvres dans l’univers numérique, 2nd
    ed., Brussels: Larcier 2007.
  • Ficsor, M. (1997). The Spring 1997 Horace S. Manges Lecture – Copyright for the Digital Era:
    The WIPO “Internet” Treaties’, Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts (1997), 197-223.
  • Ficsor, M. (2002). The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 WIPO Treaties, their
    Interpretation and Implementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002.
  • Geiger, C. (2006). “Constitutionalising” Intellectual Property Law? The Influence of
    Fundamental Rights on Intellectual Property in the European Union. International Review of
    Intellectual Property and Competition Law 37, 371.
  • Geiger, C. (2009). Intellectual Property Shall be Protected!? Article 17(2) of the Charter of
    Fundamental Rights of the European Union: a Mysterious Provision with an Unclear Scope.
    European Intellectual Property Review, 113.
  • Ginsburg, J. (2004). The (New?) Right of Making Available to the Public, in: D.Vaver, L.
    Bently (eds.), Intellectual Property in the New Millenium – Essays in Honour of William R.
    Cornish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004, 234-247.
  • Goldstein, P. and P.B. Hugenholtz (2012). International Copyright: Principles, Law and
    Practice, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012.
  • Greco, A. N. (2005). The book publishing industry. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, London.
    Guibault, L. (2002). Copyright Limitations and Contracts – An Analysis of the Contractual
    Overridability of Limitations on Copyright. London/New York/The Hague: Kluwer Law
    International.
  • Guibault, L. and Margoni, T. (2015). Legal Aspects of Open Access to Publicly Funded
    Research. In OECD (ed.) Enquiries Into Intellectual Property’s Economic Impact, Chapter 7,
    373-414. OECD, Paris.
  • Hart, M. (1998). The Proposed Directive for Copyright in the Information Society: Nice
    Rights, Shame about the Exceptions. European Intellectual Property Review 1998, 169.
  • Hechter, S. (2008). User-Generated Content and the Future of Copyright: Part One –
    Investiture of Ownership”, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 10, 863.
  • Helberger, N., L. Guibault et.al. (2009). Legal Aspects of User Created Content, Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law 2009.
  • Hugenholtz, P.B. (ed.) (1996). The Future of Copyright in a Digital Environment. Deventer: Kluwer 1996.
  • Hugenholtz, P.B. (ed.) (2000). Copyright and Electronic Commerce – Legal Aspects of Electronic Copyright Management. Deventer: Kluwer 2000.
  • Hugenholtz, P.B. (2000). Why the Copyright Directive is Unimportant, and Possibly Invalid, European Intellectual Property Review 2000, 499-501.
  • Hugenholtz, P.B. (2002). Copyright and Freedom of Expression in Europe, in: N. ElkinKoren/N.W.
  • Netanel (eds.), The Commodification of Information, The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer, 239.
  • Jamar, S.D. (2010). Crafting Copyright Law to Encourage and Protect User-Generated Content in the Internet Social Networking Context. Widener Law Journal 19, 843
  • Kéréver, A. (1998). The new WIPO Treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, UNESCO Copyright Bulletin 1998 No. 2, 3-17.
  • Kreile, J. and Schley, E. (2015). Reform der Reform – Wie viel vom Kölner und Münchner
    Entwurf steckt im Referentenentwurf zum Urhebervertragsrecht? Zeitschrift für Urheber- und
    Medienrecht 2015, 837.
  • Koelman, K. (2000). A Hard Nut to Crack: The Protection of Technological Measures. European Intellectual Property Review (2000), 272-288.
  • Kretschmer, M., Singh, S., Bently, L. and Cooper, E. (2011). 2011 Copyright contracts and earnings of visual creators: A survey of 5,800 British designers, fine artists, illustrators and photographers. CIPPM, Bournemouth.
  • Lemley, M. (1997). Dealing with Overlapping Copyrights on the Internet, University of Daytona Law Review (1997), 547-585.
  • Lewinski, S. von (2008). International Copyright Law and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
  • Netanel, N.W. (1996). Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, Yale Law Journal 106, 283. Peguera, M. (2009). The DMCA Safe Harbour and Their European Counterparts: A Comparative Analysis of Some Common Problems. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 32 (2009), 481-512
  • Peifer, K.-N. (2013). Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger – „Zombie im ParagrafenDschungel“
    oder Retter in der Not? Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Praxis im
    Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht 2013, 149-153.
  • Peifer, K.-N. (2015). Urhebervertragsrecht in der Reform: Der „Kölner Entwurf. Gewerblicher
    Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht – Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, 1.
  • Peifer, K.-N. (2016). Der Referentenentwurf zum Urhebervertragsrecht. Gewerblicher
    Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2016, 6. C.H.Beck, Munich.
  • Ricketson, S. and J. Ginsburg (2006). International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006.
  • Schack, H. (2002). Urhebervertragsrecht im Meinungsstreit. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und
    Urheberrecht, 853.
  • Schricker, G. (2002). Zum neuen deutschen Urhebervertragsrecht. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz
    und Urheberrecht – Internationaler Teil, 797.
  • Senftleben, M.R.F. (2013c). Breathing Space for Cloud-Based Business Models: Exploring the Matrix of Copyright Limitations, Safe Harbours and Injunctions. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law 4 (2013), 87-103.
  • Travis, H. (2008). Opting Out of the Internet in the United States and the European Union: Copyright, Safe Harbors, and International Law. Notre Dame Law Review 84 (2008), 331-407.
  • Wong, M.W.S. (2009). Transformative User-Generated Content in Copyright Law: Infringing Derivative Works or Fair Use?, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 11, 1075.
  • Xalabarder, R. (2014). The Remunerated Statutory Limitation for News Aggregation and Search Engines Proposed by the Spanish Government – Its Compliance With International and EU Law. IN3 Working Paper Series. Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya 2014, 1-40.
  • European Commission (2015). Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Towards a Modern, More European Copyright Framework”. Document COM(2015) 626 final, dated 9 December 2015 European Commission (2016). Public Consultation on the Role of Publishers in the Copyright Value Chain and on the ‘Panorama Exception’.

Leave a Comment