RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q/BEL/1
31October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4610)
Original: English/French*Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONCOPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
Belgium1
ThepresentdocumentreproducesthequestionsputtothedelegationofBelgiumandtheresponses
given inthereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights attheCouncil 'smeeting of22to
25July1996.2
_______________
I. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYPOLAND
1. Please indicate whether domestic lawonprotection ofworks, phonograms andperformances
aswellasonbroadcast organizations isinfullconformity withtheprovisions ofArticle 14oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
TheBelgianLawof30June1994onCopyrightandNeighbouringRightsprovidesforprotection
ofperformers, producers ofphonograms andbroadcasting organizations thatitisinconformity with
Article 14oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Therelevant provisions aresetoutinArticles 33to47oftheLaw.
2. Does Belgium intend toaccede totheRome Convention?
Belgium intends toapprove theRome Convention veryshortly.
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Please explain whether andhowBelgian lawprovides protection forworks, phonograms and
performances fromother WTO Members, andwhether andhowitdoessoonthebasis ofnational
treatment, asrequired byTRIPS Article 3(generally, withrespect toallcopyrights andneighbouring
rights) andArticle 9.1(incorporating Berne Article 5(1)). Inparticular, please explain hownational
treatment isafforded withrespect tothedistribution ofblank tapelevies under Articles 55-57 and79
oftheBelgian Copyright Law.
*French forthereplies andEnglish forthequestions.
1Belgium 'snotification oflawsandregulations intheareaofcopyright andrelated rights under Article 63.2
oftheAgreement hasbeen circulated indocuments IP/N/1/BEL/1 andIP/N/1/BEL/C/1.
2Theminutes ofthemeeting have been circulated indocument IP/C/M/8.IP/Q/BEL/1
Page2
Article 79,paragraph 3oftheLawof30June1994 onCopyright andNeighbouring rights
establishes thatifitisfound thatBelgian authors andBelgian holders ofneighbouring rights enjoy
lessextensive protection inanother country, nationals ofthatcountry maybenefit fromtheprovisions
oftheLawonlytothesame extent.
However, thereciprocity principle iswithout prejudice totheprovisions ofinternational
conventions (Article 79,paragraph 1oftheBelgian Law).
Consequently, thenational treatment ruleandexceptions tothatruleinregard tocopyright
andneighbouring rights under theTRIPS Agreement apply inBelgium.
Asfarasprivate copyremuneration rights areconcerned, Articles 55to58oftheBelgian Law
entered intoforce on1August 1995. Thismeans that,first,levies onequipment andmedia havebeen
made onlysince thatdate, and,second, nodistribution hasbeenmade uptonow.
Forthese reasons, itispremature toindicate theconditions under which private copy
remuneration rights willbedistributed.
2. DoesBelgium apply the"rule oftheshorter term" tophonograms andperformances fromother
WTO Members? Ifso,please explain howyoujustify suchaction under TRIPS Article 4.
Thequestion seems torefertothetermofprotection granted toperformers andproducers of
phonograms. Inconformity withTRIPS Article 14.5, itmustbe50years fromtheendofthecalender
yearinwhich thefixation wasmade ortheperformance tookplace.
[Follow-up question]
Please confirm thatBelgium doesnotapply theruleoftheshorter terminthecaseofsound
recordings andperformances.
Question No.2seems torelate tothetermofprotection granted toperformers andproducers
ofphonograms.
Inconformity withTRIPS Article 14.5, theBelgian Lawgrants protection toperformers and
producers ofphonograms whoarenationals ofother WTO Member countries for50years from the
endofthecalendar yearinwhich thefixation wasmade ortheperformance tookplace.
3. Please explain whether andhowBelgium protects against both thedirect andindirect
reproduction ofphonograms asrequired byTRIPS Article 14.2, including bydigital transmission in
thecontext ofsubscription orinteractive services.
Article 39,paragraph 1oftheBelgian Lawprovides that(...)theproducer ofphonograms
(...)isalone entitled toreproduce orauthorize reproduction inanywayandinanyform.
Itisapparent fromthepreparatory workfortheBelgian Lawthattheconcept ofthereproduction
rightisbroad enough tocover indirect reproduction ofaphonogram, including reproduction byaradio
broadcast ofaphonogram (Law onCopyright andNeighbouring Rights, Doc.Parl., Rapport, 473/33,
page221).
Although therights established bytheBelgian Lawaretechnologically neutral, thecourts do
notseem tohave ruled asyetontheexact scope oftheright ofreproduction inthecontext of
multichannel orinteractive services.IP/Q/BEL/1
Page3
4. Please explain whether andhowBelgium provides fullretroactive protection toworks,
phonograms andperformances fromother WTO Members, asrequired byTRIPS Articles 9.1,14.6
and70.2,eachofwhich incorporate byreference orrelyuponBerne Article 18.Please givethedate
backtowhich suchprotection extends withrespect toeachcategory ofsubject matter.
Article 88,paragraph 1oftheLaw establishes thattheLaw shall apply toworks and
performances dating from before itsentry intoforce andnotfalling within thepublic domain atthat
time.
Theexpression "notfalling within thepublic domain" istaken torefertoperformances for
which thetermofprotection hasnotexpired atthetimeofentryintoforceoftheLaw(Law onCopyright
andNeighbouring Rights, Doc. Parl., Rapport, 473/33, page 327; Trib. civ.Réf., Bruxelles,
5April 1995, Auteurs etmédia, Feb.1996, Larcier, pages 57etseq.;Com. Bruxelles, 4Sept. 1995,
Auteurs etmédia, June1996, Larcier pages 153etseq.).
Without prejudice toArticle 79oftheLaw, thefollowing works andperformances benefited
on1January 1996, thedateofentry intoforce oftheTRIPS Agreement, from:
(1) Copyright protection: works whose author orlastsurviving co-author diedafter
31December 1925;
(2) neighbouring rights protection:
- performances byperformers after31December 1945andperformances which
havebeenthesubject oflawful publication orcommunication tothepublic
after31December 1945, provided thishasnotbeen done afteraterm of
50years from thedateoftheperformance;
- phonograms when thefixation isafter31December 1945 andphonograms
which havebeenthesubject oflawful publication orcommunication tothe
public after31December 1945, provided thishasnotbeendoneafteraterm
of50years from thedateofthefixation ofthephonogram.
5. Please explain thecriminal andcivilremedies available forcopyright infringement andthe
extent towhich theyfullimplement theobligations inTRIPS Articles 41,45,50and61.Intheresponse,
please specify, interalia,whether these remedies mayinclude theseizure, forfeiture anddestruction
ofinfringing articles andequipment usedtomake theinfringing articles, asrequired byArticles 46
and61,andthemanner inwhich thegrant ofcivilprovisional relief isprovided inaccordance with
TRIPS Article 50.
Ithasbeenagreed thatnational implementing legislation onintellectual property rights will
beconsidered atalatermeeting oftheCouncil forTRIPS, afterconsideration ofnational legislation
onthevarious intellectual property rights (copyright andneighbouring rights, marks, patents, andso
on)(seemore particularly document IP/C/W/7/Rev.1).
Forconsistency inconsidering national provisions onintellectual property rights, questions
relating tosuchprovisions should bekeptaside andanswered attheCouncil forTRIPS meeting to
beheldonthissubject.IP/Q/BEL/1
Page4
6. Article 1ofBelgium 'sCopyright Lawenumerates theexclusive rights thatvestinliterary and
artistic works. However, because theCopyright Lawfailsexplicitly tostatewhether audiovisual works
areconsidered tobe"artistic works", itisnotclear whatexclusive rights aregranted tocopyright
owners ofaudiovisual works under Belgium 'sCopyright Law. Canyouplease clarify whatrights are
granted tocopyright owners ofaudiovisual works under theBelgium Copyright Law?
Authors ofaudiovisual works enjoy thepecuniary andnon-pecuniary rights referred toin
Article 1oftheLaw.
7. Article 1ofBelgium 'sCopyright Lawprovides authors witharightofpublic communication.
Itisnotclear fromtheLawwhether thisrightincludes therights ofpublic performance, broadcast,
transmission,rebroadcastandretransmission.Pleaseexplainwhetherandhowthepubliccommunication
right includes these rights, which arerequired byArticle 9.1ofTRIPS (incorporating byreference
Berne Article 11bis) andArticle 14ofTRIPS, orwhether andhowtheyareprovided forelsewhere
intheLaw?
Itisapparent from thepreparatory work fortheLawthatpublic communication means any
actintended toofferthepublic awork oraperformance inanintangible form, more particularly by
performance ordisplay orbybroadcasting, cabletransmission etc.(LawonCopyright andNeighbouring
Rights, Doc. Par., Rapport, 473/33 page64).
8. Please explain howcomputer programs anddatabases areprotected under Belgian law. In
particular, please specify whether computer programs areprotected "asliterary works" asrequired
byArticle 10ofTRIPS.
(a) Protection ofcomputer programs.
Computer programs areprotected bytheLawof30June1994incorporating inBelgian
lawtheEuropean Directive of14May1991 onthelegal protection ofcomputer
programs (Moniteur Belge, 27July1994).
Article 1oftheLawestablishes that,pursuant toCouncil Directive 91/250/EEC of
14May1991onthelegalprotection ofcomputer programs, computer programs will
beprotected bycopyright andassimilated toliterary works within themeaning ofthe
Berne Convention fortheProtection ofLiterary andArtistic Works.
(b) Protection ofcompilations ofdataandother material.
Caselawadmits copyright protection ofcompilations ofdatamarked bythepersonality
oftheauthor asaresult oftheintellectual, research andanalytical effort andthe
arrangement ofthedata(Cass., 2March 1993, Larcier Cassation, 1993, page52;
Cass., 27.04.1989, Pas., 1989, 1,page908; Cass., 25October 1989, Pas., 1990,
I,page238).
Inthisway, theprotectable nature ofthework hasbeenrecognized inthecaseofan
administrative schedule, notarial fees,acompilation containing financial data,achurch
andprayer book, acompilation oflegislation andjurisprudence andabrochure
containing insurance rates.
However, copyright protection foracompilation ofdata, adirectory inthecasein
point, wasnotadmitted onthegrounds thattheclassification ofthedatawasroutine
andhadbeeninuseforalongtime(J.P. Bruxelles, 28June1917, Pas., III,1917,IP/Q/BEL/1
Page5
page277). Thesame court alsoheldthattheonlynewarrangement inthedirectory
wasclassification ofthesubscribers byorder oftheirtelephone numbers, thatsuch
anarrangement could notbeprotected forthereason thatitwasnotsufficiently novel,
andfurthermore, therequisite element wasthatthenewcombination should bethe
outcomeofintellectualwork,evenifsuchworkconsistedonlyofcoordination,provided
intelligence hadplayed apreponderant partandthework wasnotsimply material work
ofcompilation.