Péter TARRAI-Congress2012 – KYOTO
Questionnaire
Response by the Hungarian ALAI Groupprepared by Mihály J. FICSOR,
with the assistance of Pál TOMORI, Gábor FALUDI, Anikó GYENGE, Péter MEZEI,
András SZINGER, Péter MUNKÁCSI and Péter TARR
Session 1－Developments of New Platforms
1)

How would you define “The Cloud” in your country?
Response: The “cloud” is a global phenomenon. Its infrastructure, its most well-known
applications and its terminology have been developed in other countries which are moreadvanced in the field of IT technology and business methods. Therefore, it is normal that no
specific definition and terminology is applied in Hungary; we use the same concepts and same
categories which seem to be, by now, quite well known a broadly used practically everywhere.
We share the view that “cloud” is a new name – a new metaphor – used for certain
phenomena the elements of which did exist also before this term emerged and became
fashionable. By this, we refer to one of the key characteristics of the “cloud,” namely that theusers’ digital contents, including their personal data as well as copies of protected works andobjects of related rights, are not stored in PCs, laptops or other personal devices but onservers operated by others. There were e-mail services (such as those operated by Yahoo and
Google) and there were social networks, such as Facebook, etc. The term “cloud” has become
fashionable as a result of two parallel developments: (i) some global platforms (Amazon,
Google, Apple) launched their huge online storage-space services; (ii) procedures began
against certain cyberlocker and similar platforms (RapidShare, Megaupload, YouTube) whichwere followed with great attention.
We are also aware of the now quite generally applied categorization of the cloud services(private cloud, public cloud, community cloud, hybrid cloud, SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, etc.)2)

Is exploitation of works, performances, sound recordings and so on generally considered torelate to the Cloud?
Response: It is difficult to interpret this question. Probably, it does not refer to globally
available cloud platforms, since in that respect, it is obvious that great amounts of works,
performances, sound recordings and so are included in the cloud (see YouTube, RapidShare,
Apple iCloud, Apple iMatch, “social networks,”etc.). As regards the situation in Hungary, on
the cloud provider side (we emphasize that we speak about the provider side, since, of course,
the members of the public, use the services of global cloud platforms), it is, for time being, lesstypical that the emerging, in general smaller, cloud services extend to the exploitation works
and objects of related rights.
It is a further question what is meant by “exploitation.” We understand that it probably means
business methods for lawful making available of works. Again, we may say that we are aware

of such kinds of global platforms, but, in Hungary probably no such platforms of substantial
relevance have been established yet.
In the preceding sentence, the word, “probably” refers to a specific situation from theviewpoint of our response. Namely to this: An international platform has contacted Artisjus,
the Hungarian authors’ society, to seek authorization for a cloud-based service. The essence ofthe service is that, if the lawfulness of works uploaded by the users is doubtful, they are
replaced in the cloud with lawful copies which then may be downloaded (streamed to) a fixed
number of devices. The problem is that, under the contract, Artisjus is bound by commercial
secret, and thus, it is not allowed to it to give more information on the agreement.
3)

Are there already commercial platforms established specifically designated for the Cloud or tosome extent related to Cloud uses? Can you foresee such new platforms to be established in thenear future?
Response: Again, we understand that those commercial platforms are meant which may havebeen established in Hungary, since the globally – or at least internationally – available suchplatforms are well-known to everybody. Furthermore, we also understand that the scope of
this question is broader than that of question 2; that is, not only those platforms are meant
which are specialized in exploitation of works and objects of related rights, but, for example,
also advertisement-based social networks (which, of course, may also be relevant from theviewpoint of copyright and related rights due to protected materials uploaded by the users of
the networks).
There are such Hungarian platforms; however, interestingly, not with increasing activity andsuccess, but (at least as some of them are concerned) it seems just on the contrary. For
example, there is a cloud-based social network – iWiW – which is, however, “fading out” nowbecause the Facebook – in particular, since it has been available also in Hungarian – has beentaken over its role step by step. There are also some other smaller cloud-based platforms, likethe “Indavideo” streaming platform or “Indavideo” for photos.
In Hungary, cloud services are active rather for the corporate sector (for example, in the form
of offering server parks to be used by different companies).
4) How would you evaluate the Cloud’s importance to copyright for the next few years to
come?
Response: It seems that the response to this question is quite obvious: it will be of a growing
importance. This is due to the ever more efficient global cloud platforms (Google, Apple,
Amazon, etc.) with their huge and rich repertoire, on the one hand, and the proliferation ofcheap but poweverful tablets (to replace PCs, laptops and other similar devices which are notcloud-dependent), on the other hand.

Sessions 2 and 3－ Can the Internet Treaties of 1996 play an important role in legal issues raised by “Cloud”
Business?
1)

Is there any case law to be found in your country and/or examples of (good) practices
concerning:
1.1) the right of making available to the public with reference to “Cloud” storage, retrieval anddissemination?
1.2) cloud providers that may be relevant to determine liability for the making available ofunauthorized content in the cloud environment?

Response: There is no court decision yet in Hungary on these issues. What we may mention inthis connection is an official opinion of the Hungarian Copyright Experts Council adopted in2007 (Opinion No. SzJSzT 31/07/1.). The Council had to answer this question which ARTISJUS,
the authors’ society, had submitted to it: Is copying by end-users with “virtual PVRs,” that is,online „personal video recorders,“ covered by the private copying exception? Such copying
takes place when a provider allocates portions of its server storage capacity on which endusers can copy films and other productions, these being usually transmitted in television
programs. The users can download such content from the server to enjoy privately. The
Council held that where the storage-provider records a copy of a film for making it available
from its server for „private“ use by its users (directly or through their private storage space),such copying does qualify as free reproduction under the private copying exception.
2)

Is there case law on the technological protection measures and Electronic rights management
information in the “Cloud” environment?
Response: In Hungary, there is no such case law yet.

3)

How can we re-examine or re-evaluate the role of the WIPO Treaties with reference to “cloud”
developments?
Response: In our view, there is no need for any revision of the WIPO Treaties due to the clouddevelopments. What is needed is adequate interpretation and application of the provisions of
the Treaties in the cloud environment.

Session 4– New Business Models for effective Protection of Copyright and Related rights in the “Cloud”:
Role of electronic rights management in new business models
Note: In general, services offered on the basis of cloud computing technologies are classified as“Software as a Service“ (SaaS), “Platform as a Service” (PaaS) and “Infrastructure as a Service” (IaaS).
Under the heading of “New Business Models for effective Protection of Copyright and Related rights
in the ‘Cloud’”, the main focus is on PaaS, whereas both IaaS and SaaS are of minor importance, since
they generally do not involve the use of copyrighted works of literature and the arts (issues of
copyright in software are not discussed at this congress).
Comment: In our view, it may not be fully justified to consider that SaaS cloud services arenecessarily of a minor importance and that they generally do not involve the use of works
protected by copyright. There are several well-known cloud services for the use of software.
We believe that the services of such popular online games as Second Life, OnLive, World of
Warcraft (protected by copyright) are good examples for this. Such services may be usedthrough virtual cloud software; there is no need to have one in the users’ PCs or otherpersonal devices. We may also mention those simpler video games which are available free ofcharge through social networks (e.g., Zynga available through Facebook). (They are free ofcharge but they are part of the business model of the social network portal, since the big
number of „visitors” attracts a lot of advertisement money.)Note: This subsection focuses on successful business models of authors and rightholders who market
their copyrighted subject matter in the cloud either themselves or via a service provider (such as, e.g.
Apple’s “iTunes in the Cloud“), presumably by employing digital rights management (DRM) andperhaps also technical protection measures (TPM).

1) In your country, what types of cloud services are offered and/or made available by authors
and rightholders offering their copyrighted content?
Response: We believe that our responses to the questions under points 2 and 3 concerning
Session 1 offers response to this question too.
In Hungary, the global – or, at least, international – cloud services are used (some of them also
have Hungarian version; such as YouTube). However, there is no real Hungary-based system ofa significant relevance (with the exception of some smaller SaaS services).
2)

What kinds of works are being offered in this way (e.g., musical works, literary works,
photographic works, audiovisual works, performances etc.)?
Response: We believe that our responses to the questions under points 2 and 3 concerning
Session 1 offers response to this question too.

3)

What rights do rightholders usually transfer to the providers of cloud services?
Response: ARTISJUS, the Hungarian authors’ society has negotiated an agreement with acloud service. However, due to commercial secret reasons, it is not allowed to offer
information on such details.

4)

What uses of copyrighted material are the users of such cloud services permitted?
Response: If end-users are meant, then the users who upload lawful materials in a way thatthey do not make it publicly available, in principle, private reproduction takes place. See,however, the official opinion of the Copyright Experts Council mentioned in the response to
the question under point 1 concerning Sessions 2 and 3. If access is allowed to the members of
the public, the right of (interactive) making available to the public is involved.

5)

Can you give any figures regarding both royalty rates and total revenue authors andrightholders receive when their works are being offered in the cloud?
Response: Due to commercial secret reasons, no such data are available

6)

What kind of TPM and DRM is used by these services?
Response: We understand that, in this question, Hungarian systems are meant. As ourprevious responses indicate, with the exception of SaaS services, there are no truly relevant
systems. We have no information concerning the technical aspects of the TPMs and RMI used.

7)

Under the legislation of your country, to what extent are TPM protected against theirunauthorized circumvention?
Response: The provisions of the Hungarian Copyright Act (Act LXXVI of 1999, several times
amended) in Article 95 correspond – in the form of a nearly verbatim transposition – to Article
6(1) to (3) of the 2001 Information Society (Copyright) Directive of the EU. Under Article 329/Bof the Criminal Code currently in force (Act IV of 1978; several times amended), those who
manufacture or distribute unauthorized circumvention devices or offer unauthorizedcircumvention services are punishable up to two years imprisonment and, where these actsare on a commercial scale, up to three years imprisonment.

8)

Is unauthorized circumvention of TPM a practical problem for those offering their content in
the cloud?
Response: We have no information on such specific problems.

5 Copyright-avoiding business models
Note: This subsection focuses on business models of persons other than authors and rightholders,
who build upon someone else’s copyrighted material and who – successfully or not – try not to be
subject to copyright liability. Examples are services that make use of the private copying exception(such as, e.g., personalized internet video-recorders) or which strive to benefit from an exception tolegal liability as an Internet Service Provider (such as, e.g., under the EU e-Commerce Directive). In
addition, strategies of authors who market their copyrighted works outside of copyright (such as, e.g.,under an open content or Creative Commons (CC) licence) can also be regarded as “copyrightavoiding” business models (although technically, they are based on copyright).
5.1 – Private copying in the Cloud1)

In your country, are there services – and if so, what kind of services are there - that offer its
users to store private copies in the cloud?
Examples are storage services with limited access (such as Google’s “Picasa”), platforms withgeneral public access (such as, e.g., FlickR) and mixed-forms (such as, e.g. Facebook) but alsoso-called internet-video recorders and possible other forms of private storage services.
Response: There are such services. For example, the above-mentioned iWiW social network
is similar to Facebook, while the also above-mentioned Indavideo and Indaphoto are similar
to FlickR.

2)

In legal terms, to what extent do the operators of such services benefit from its user’s private
copying exception? Are there any other exceptions under copyright law?
(note that general exceptions of legal liability are discussed under 5.2).
Response: We refer also in this context to the official opinion of the Copyright Experts Council
mentioned in the response to the question under point 1 concerning Sessions 2 and 3.

5.2 – Copyright-avoiding models on the basis of – presumed – exceptions to copyright liability or
limited interpretations of the “making available” right1)

To what extent do the operators of cloud services benefit from a narrow interpretation of the
making available (or communication to the public, or public performance) right?
Response: We are not sure what is meant by this question. However, it seems that itpresupposes some narrow interpretation of the right of making available right. In view of the
Hungarian law, we cannot report on a “narrow” interpretation.

2)

According to the law in your country, what is the legal status (primary or secondary liability contributory infringement or vicarious liability; aiding and abetting, other liability such as an
inducer, “Störer”) of the provider of cloud services with regard to copyright infringing
content uploaded by its users?
Response: In Hungary, the liability of providers is regulated in accordance with the well-known
provisions of the Enforcement Directive Electronic (2004/48/EC) and the Commerce Directive(2000/31/EC) of the EU in the Copyright Act (Act LXXVI of 1999) and in the Electronic
Commerce Act (Act CVIII of 2001). This means that, in general, the limits of secondary liability
are determined by their obligations to respect injunctions and the right of information asprovided in the Directives. (Of course, on the right of information, the decision of the Court ofJustice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Bonnier case is also applicable for Hungary; see:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=121743&pageIndex=0&doc
lang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4604200.)
However, the Electronic Commerce Act goes beyond the rules of the Electronic Commerce
Directive in two respects. First, it extends the provisions on the liability of hosting service
providers to providers of information location tools (in respect of which the Electronic
Commerce Directive does not contain specific provisions) (Article 11 of the Act). Secondly –and more importantly – although the provisions on the conditions limiting the liability ofservice providers (in accordance with the Directive) have “horizontal” effect (in that they cover
not only for copyright infringement, but for all kinds of tortious prejudice and damage
generally, such as for defamation and invasion of privacy), with respect to copyright
infringements, there is a further condition; namely that the liability of a service provider islimited only if the provider complies with the provisions of Article 13 of the Electronic
Commerce Act on a notice-and-takedown procedure.
If the owner of the pertinent right claims that a service provider is making accessible any
information that infringes its right, that owner may serve a private or public notice, with fullevidentiary effect, on the service provider to demand the latter to remove, or to disable access
to, the information in question. This notice must specify the following: (a) the right-ownerwith its name, telephone number, main postal address, and electronic-mail address; (b) inwhat work or other media production the pertinent right is claimed and facts probative of theinfringement; and (c) data identifying the information in question. (Article 13(1) and (2).)
Within 12 hours from the receipt of the notice, the service provider must remove or disable
access to the information identified in the notice. Within 3 days, it must inform the user of its
service, who has provided the information in question, of the terms of the notice requesting
removal or disablement of access. (Article 13(4).) Within 8 days from the user's receipt of such
notification of the removal or disablement of access, the user of the service may request, in a
private or public notice with full evidentiary effect, that the information be restored to thesystem. Such a counter-notice must specify (a) the user of the service with the requisitecontact information set out above for the right-owner, (b) the information claimed to be
infringing, and (c) the prior network location of this information. Further, the counter-noticemust include a statement that, with appropriate justification, explains why the information inquestion is not infringing. The service provider, upon receipt of the counter-notice, mustrestore the information, or access to it, within its system. It must also inform the right-ownerof the terms of the counter-notice and the restoration of the information. (Article 13(6) and (7).)
If, after being apprised of the initial notice, the user of the service admits the infringement ordoes not submit a counter-notice within the required 8-day period, the service provider must
maintain the removal of, or disablement of access to, the information in question. (Article
13(8).) Within 10 days of the receipt of a counter-notice, the right-owner has the options offiling a civil suit to obtain a temporary injunction and ultimately a permanent injunction to
restrain the infringement or of initiating a criminal proceeding. Within 3 days of filing a civil
suit or starting a criminal proceeding, the right-owner must send the service provider a copy ofthe pleadings or process commencing the pertinent action, and the service provider must
remove or disable access to the information again as it did before, that is, within 12 hours.
(Article 13(9).) The right-owner has to notify the service provider of any temporary injunction orfinal judicial decision on the merits issued in the case. The service provider, depending on the
judicial outcome, must either restore the information in question or maintain its removal or
disablement of access. (Article 13(10).)The service provider is not liable for removing or disabling access to the information inquestion, provided that it has acted in good faith and in harmony with the pertinent provisionsof the Electronic Commerce Act. (Article 13(12).)3)

In your country, do cloud service providers benefit from an exception to liability (such as, e.g.,under the EU e-Commerce Directive), and if so, to what extent (e.g., total exemption fromliability or exemption only from duty to pay damages)?
Please cite to and briefly describe statutory provisions and relevant case law.
Response: We refer to our response to the preceding question.
There is no case law in this respect. However, the notice-and-take-down system is appliedadequately. It is mainly ProArt – an anti-piracy alliance of Hungarian owners of copyright andrelated rights – which send a number of notices. The statistical data received from them on thelast two years offer the following picture:
The total number of the notices sent in 2010 is 949 notices.
The total number of removed cyberlocker links in 2010 is 156334 links.
The total number of the notices sent in 2011 is 766 notices.
The total number of removed cyberlocker links in 2011 is 183859 links.
Providers do co-operate and fulfil their take-down obligations. No counter-notice has beenpresented.

4)

Also according to the law in your country, what duty of care is owed by cloud service
providers to monitor and eventually remove copyright infringing content?
Response: The Hungarian Electronic Commerce Act mentioned above, in accordance with theElectronic Commerce Directive, does not provide for a general monitoring obligation (Article
7(3) of the Act). Concerning possible non-general obligations, there is no case law yet. As
regards the obligations of providers to remove infringing content; see our response toquestion 2 above.

5)

What evidence must a rightholder present in order to have infringing content removed?
Response: See our response to question 2 above.

6)

In your country, are there any contracts that have been concluded between cloud service
providers and rightholders concerning the use of copyrighted material by the users of thecloud services?
Response: As indicated above, there are such contracts, but – for commercial secret reasons– the contracting parties are not allowed to grant information.

7)

In your country, what copyright-avoiding cloud services are operating successfully, and what
services that sought to be avoiding copyright have been banned and eventually shut down?

Response: We note that, in this context, the euphemistic expression “copyright-avoiding cloudservices” possibly mean pirate services. Fortunately, we cannot report about the success ofsuch Hungarian services.
It is another matter that there have been successful raids in Hungary in recent years as a resultof which several warez and torrent sites have been closed; however, such “services” may not
be characterized as cloud services.
8)

In your country, are there any legislative changes under discussion as regards the liability ofservice providers who provide for cloud services? In particular, do you think that liability ofservice providers will be reduced or, rather, increased?
Response: For the time being, there no legislative changes are foreseen in Hungary in thisrespect. From the viewpoint of the Hungarian law, much depends on what is happening in the
EU. It seems obvious that the obligations of providers to cooperate with rights owners andtheir liability would have to be increased. However, the success of the aggressive lobbying of
the IT industries (and of the artificial hysterical campaign of their agents) in the July 3, 2012,
anti-copyright vote of the European Parliament concerning the watered-down version of the
ACTA (which is in accordance with the current EU acquis) indicates that this will not be easy.

9)

Do you see any progress regarding filtering technology?
Response: We understand that the question mainly relates to filtering technology and not tothe possible legal obligations to apply such technology.
The Hungarian software industry is quite developed, but we have not received information on
specific filtering technology developments. At the international level, filtering technology is
obviously develops in a way that it may become an ever more efficient means to prevent andeliminate online infringements.
In its Sabam v. Netlog descision (C-360/10), the CJEU mainly concentrated on what hosting
service providers are not obligated to do on the basis of the interpretation of the various – notalways duly harmonized – directives on different issues. It stated that they“must be interpreted as precluding a national court from issuing an injunction against ahosting service provider which requires it to install a system for filtering:–––

information which is stored on its servers by its service users;
which applies indiscriminately to all of those users;
as a preventative measure;––exclusively at its expense; andfor an unlimited period,

which is capable of identifying electronic files containing musical, cinematographic oraudio-visual work in respect of which the applicant for the injunction claims to holdintellectual property rights, with a view to preventing those works from being madeavailable to the public in breach of copyright.”
From the viewpoint of the chance of filtering technology to be used to contribute to the fightagainst online infringements, the decision of the Hamburg Court (Landgericht Hamburg) in the
GEMA v. YouTube case (No. 3100 461/10 adopted on April 20; under appeal) is more promising(and it seems it is also in accordance with the acquis). On the basis of a due application of the
proportionality test, it has found that the YouTube cannot get rid of liability for the
infringements committed by its users by only taking down infringing contents when it isinformed of them. According to the Court, it is reasonable to demand from the YouTube that it,
after having been alerted of an infringement, prevent future uploads of the same works (thesame recording) by using filtering software; the more so since such software is alreadyavailable to YouTube in the form of its Content-ID software, which the it has developed itself.
5.3 – “Copyright-avoiding” business models operated by authors for the “Cloud”
1)

In your country, is there a noticeable use of “copyright-avoiding” business models, such as
Creative Commons (CC) or comparable open content licenses by rightholders with respect tocloud-based exploitations of works?
Response: We have noted that, in this question, “copyright-avoiding business” does not mean
the same as in the case of question 7, above.
CC licenses exist and applied also in Hungary. However, they are mainly used by those atypicalauthors who, for some reasons (in general, because they have income from other sources) do
not care for copyright. If we may still speak about business-oriented use of CC licenses, it may
be the case where musicians upload a recording for free availability in the hope that, throughits possible popularity, they may get income through other channels. There is some limited
information on this in anecdotal form, but we can hardly speak about duly developed“business.”2)

If so, in what areas (music, literature, audiovisual works, scientific works etc.) are suchlicenses most often used?
Response: See our response to the preceding question.

3)

Are there any figures available as to how the authors of such works generate income fromsuch cloud-based exploitations, and how much?
Response: There is no such data. See our response to question 1 above.

4)

Also in your country, what legal obstacles are authors faced with when making use of open
content and CC-licenses?
Examples might be the unenforceability of such licences; the refusal to award damages forunauthorized commercial use of works that have been made available only for noncommercial use; collecting societies refusing to represent authors who want to market someof their works under a CC-licence; the exclusion of CC-authors from receiving remuneration
under a private copying regime etc.
Response: The only perceived problem is the possible conflicts with the collective
management system.
It is well-known that certain European authors’ societies (such as SACEM, BUMA, SGAE, KODA,TEOSTO) have some “pilot projects” allowing their members to allow the use of their works
under CC licenses for non-commercial purposes mainly on their own websites. It seems,
however, that this possibility is of quite a limited use, for the time being. Artisjus, the
Hungarian authors’ society does not have yet such a system.

Session 6－Future Model of One-Stop-On-Line Licensing in the Cloud Environment
1)

Does your country have specific private international law rules for copyright in particular and forintellectual property in general or are there general rules of private international law that apply
in these circumstances? In particular do your country's rules of judicial competence (personal
jurisdiction) make it possible to sue a foreign intermediary who makes it possible forinfringements to occur or to impact in the forum? Which law applies in such instances? Would
the law applicable to the primary infringement apply? Would the law of the intermediary's
residence or place of business apply?
Response: It is to be noted that, in this respect, we have to take into account those EU rules
which bind Hungary. Any special Hungarian rules may only prevail in those respects which are
not covered by those rules.
First of all the well-knows relevant provisions of the following regulations should be taken into
account: (i) Council Regulation (EC) No. 44 of 22 December 2000 on the jurisdiction and therecognition and enforcement of judgment in civil and commercial matters; (ii) Regulation (EC)No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law
applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I); and (iii) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to noncontractual obligations (Rome II).
It seems worthwhile mentioning the opinion of the Advocate General in the Football Dataco
Ltd and others v Sportradar GmbH and other case (Case C-173/11) on June 21 since it isrelevant from the viewpoint of the above-mentioned Council Directive on jurisdiction. The
opinion states, inter alia, as follows:“ Where a party uploads data from a database protected by sui generis right underDirective 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on thelegal protection of databases onto that party’s web server located in Member State A and,in response to requests from a user in another Member State B, the web server sends suchdata to the user’s computer so that the data is stored in the memory of that computer anddisplayed on its screen, the act of sending the information constitutes an act of ‘reutilisation’ by that party.
“The act of re-utilisation performed by that party takes place both in Member State A andin Member State B.”
That is, in the case of making available for downloading, the use takes place in the territory of
both States concerned; both of them have jurisdiction.
The Hungarian International Private Law Act includes a provision in its Article 19 on applicablelaw concerning copyright (which seems to be in accordance, inter alia, with Article 5(2) of theBerne Convention): “Matters concerning authors’ rights shall be judged in accordance with thelaw of the country where protection is claimed.” This is interpreted to mean the law of thecountry of the use of a work.
The Act contains, inter alia, the following provisions on law of obligations aspects:
Article 24. The provisions of Articles 25 to 30 shall be applied to those aspects of the law ofobligations to which are not covered by Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual
obligations.
Article 25. For a contract that law shall be applied which was chosen by the parties at thetime of the conclusion of the contract, or later for the entire contract or for a part thereof.
The choice of law shall be explicit, or it shall be possible to establish it with full certainty on
the basis of the provisions of the contract or of the circumstances of the case. In theabsence of choice of law, the law applicable for the contract shall be established inaccordance with Articles 26 to 26.
[Article 27 is on certain categories of contracts that are irrelevant from the viewpoint of
copyright.]
Article 28. For other contracts, in the absence of choice of law, that law shall be applicableto which the contract – in view of the essential elements of the contractual relationship – isthe most connected. [This tends to be also the law of the country where the use of works
takes place.]
2)

Does your national collective rights management organisation grant multi-territorial licences
and are there cloud-specific licence models when it comes to collective licensing? If so, does thisinclude rules on cross-border contracts (including jurisdiction and choice of law aspects)?
Response: Artisjus, the Hungarian authors’ society does not have specific tariffs for cloudservices. What we may know of the above-mentioned existing agreement of the society with amusical cloud service, it is that it does not extend to multi-territorial use.
[End of response to the Questionnaire]