WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/02 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission. Artists' rights.
Date: 2003-01-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: broadcasting, copyright, equal pay, intellectual property, remuneration of work

C 155 E/188

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

(2003/C 155 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/02

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Artists’ rights

In the case of the United Kingdom artists’ equitable remuneration for their broadcast recordings are
negotiated and collected by the record labels’ collecting society, the Phonographic Performance Limited
(PPL). What European Union countries allow artists to participate in the negotiation process for their
remuneration?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2003)

The equitable remuneration paid by the user if a phonogram is used for broadcasting by wireless means
has been harmonised at Community level under Article 8 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the
field of intellectual property.

The Directive also stipulates that this remuneration is to be shared between performers and the producers
of phonograms. However, the Directive has not directly harmonised the negotiating methods or the
distribution formulae for this remuneration. It merely states that in the absence of agreement between the
beneficiaries, Member States may themselves lay down the conditions for the sharing of this remuneration.
Thus the Directive does not stipulate how the remuneration is to be collected and negotiated.

Generally speaking, performers participate in negotiations on the amount of the equitable remuneration.
However, many Member States have stipulated that such negotiations can only take place in the context of
mandatory collective management. According to the Commission’s sources, this is specifically the case in
Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Finland, France and Ireland.

On the other hand, the vast majority of performers prefer to leave the negotiating to collecting societies,
even where national
laws do not provide for mandatory collective management. Indeed, this form of
centralised management is often more practical, both for performers and for the users of licences to
exploit rights. Lastly, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that in
response to a request for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Communities is to
decide in the coming weeks what exactly is to be understood by ‘equitable remuneration’ and the amount
of discretion left to Member States in applying this concept (see Case C-245/00 SENA v NOS).

(2003/C 155 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3791/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Collective redundancies

In her reply of 21 November 2002 to my question E-2883/02 (1), Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou
referred to the fact that infringement proceedings (Case C-55/02) were currently in progress before the
European Court of Justice against Portugal for failure fully to transpose Council Directive 98/59/EC (2) of
20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies.

Will the Commission provide further details regarding these proceedings, specifying in particular what
aspects of
thereby giving rise to the
proceedings?

the directive were not duly transposed into Portuguese law,

(1) See page 57.
(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.