WHICH COMES UNDER THE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES , NO MATTER WHETHER THE MEANS WHEREBY IT IS SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC BE THE CINEMA OR TELEVISION .
12 IN THE SAME JUDGMENT THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE RIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN A FILM AND HIS ASSIGNS TO REQUIRE FEES FOR ANY SHOWING OF THAT FILM IS PART OF THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF COPYRIGHT .
13 THE DISTINCTION , IMPLICIT IN ARTICLE 36 , BETWEEN THE EXISTENCE OF A RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE IN REGARD TO THE PROTECTION OF ARTISTIC AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY , WHICH CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY , AND THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHT , WHICH MIGHT CONSTITUTE A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , ALSO APPLIES WHERE THAT RIGHT IS EXERCISED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES .
14 JUST AS IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE RIGHT IS EXERCISED MAY PROVE TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLES 59 AND 60 IT IS EQUALLY CONCEIVABLE THAT SOME ASPECTS MAY PROVE TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 85 WHERE THEY SERVE TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN AGREEMENT , DECISION OR CONCERTED PRACTICE WHICH MAY HAVE AS ITS OBJECT OR EFFECT THE PREVENTION , RESTRICTION OR DISTORTION OF COMPETITION WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET .
15 HOWEVER , THE MERE FACT THAT THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN A FILM HAS GRANTED TO A SOLE LICENSEE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT THAT FILM IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE AND , CONSEQUENTLY , TO PROHIBIT , DURING A SPECIFIED PERIOD , ITS SHOWING BY OTHERS , IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE FINDING THAT SUCH A CONTRACT MUST BE REGARDED AS THE PURPOSE , THE MEANS OR THE RESULT OF AN AGREEMENT , DECISION OR CONCERTED PRACTICE PROHIBITED BY THE TREATY .
16 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CINEMATOGRAPHIC INDUSTRY AND OF ITS MARKETS IN THE COMMUNITY , ESPECIALLY THOSE RELATING TO DUBBING AND SUBTITLING FOR THE BENEFIT OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGE GROUPS , TO THE POSSIBILITIES OF TELEVISION BROADCASTS , AND TO THE SYSTEM OF FINANCING CINEMATOGRAPHIC PRODUCTION IN EUROPE SERVE TO SHOW THAT AN EXCLUSIVE EXHIBITION LICENCE IS NOT , IN ITSELF , SUCH AS TO PREVENT , RESTRICT OR DISTORT COMPETITION .
17 ALTHOUGH COPYRIGHT IN A FILM AND THE RIGHT DERIVING FROM IT , NAMELY THAT OF EXHIBITING THE FILM , ARE NOT , THEREFORE , AS SUCH SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 85 , THE EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS MAY , NONE THE LESS , COME WITHIN THE SAID PROHIBITIONS WHERE THERE ARE ECONOMIC OR LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO RESTRICT FILM DISTRIBUTION TO AN APPRECIABLE DEGREE OR TO DISTORT COMPETITION ON THE CINEMATOGRAPHIC MARKET , REGARD BEING HAD TO THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT MARKET .
18 SINCE NEITHER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT NOR THE FILE ON THE CASE PROVIDES ANY INFORMATION IN THIS RESPECT , IT