1

Collective Management of press clippings in Spain

Susana Checa Prieto

Brussels, 10th June 2011

2

1. Legal framework

2. Consequences of the legal framework

3. SWOT analysis

4. Summary

5. Conclusion

Outline

1. Legal framework (I)

TWO RULES FOR TWO DIFFERENT USES

FOR PROFIT COMPILATIONS

PCAs

CLIENTS

INTERNAL USE OF CLIPPINGS

Art. 32 Spanish Intellectual Property Act

Art. 17 Spanish Intellectual Property Act

No objection from author: remunerated legal exception

Objection from author: individual permission or

collective licence

• Spanish Intellectual Property Act (Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, modified by Law 23/2006)

• Quotation includes the compilation of newspaper and magazine articles LEGAL EXCEPTION

• For profit compilations (i.e.- commercial purpose: product sold to a third party)

TWO OPTIONS

1. Legal framework (II): COMPILATIONS

individual permission or collective licence is required

• Spanish Intellectual Property Act (Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, modified by Law 23/2006)

• Internal use of clippings GENERAL RULE

1. Legal framework (III): INTERNAL USE OF CLIPPINGS

• Quotation includes the compilation of newspaper and magazine articles LEGAL EXCEPTION

Exclusive right of author to decide the use of the work

1. Legal framework (IV): Definitions under the law

AUTHOR PUBLISHER

For profit compilation

Internal use of clipping

STEP 1

STEP 2

2. Consequences of the legal framework (I)

PCAs

END USERS

LEGAL EXCEPTION

8

2. Consequences of the legal framework (II)

1. Is the system working? NO

2. Agreement RH – PCAs considered anticompetitive

3. Not every press clipping agency has a license.

4. CEDRO can not approach the “second” market yet.

5. But we are establishing the basis for the approach.

Right holders PCAs

9

3. SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats

Open interpretation of the law

Low level of remuneration for RH

Dysfunctional market

Amendments to the law

The right is established

CEDRO is acknowledged as a player in the market

Develop a simple and secure system for RH and users

Art. 17 & 32 have yet to be monetized

RH eligibility for remuneration can yet be appealed to a higher court

CEDRO has never been charged with a misdemeanor under the law

CEDRO can provide a win-win solution for all parties

RH risk averse to legal challenges

10

4. Summary

1. Legal system is not practical

2. RH are not able to protect and monetize their rights

3. RH are concerned that financial rewards will not compensate for the risk of future legal challenges

4. CEDRO is working towards consolidating its position in the market.

5. CEDRO could provide a win-win solution for all players

11

5. Conclusion

Challenging situation - CEDRO should work the system for the benefit of every party and is in the position to do so

Thank you for your attention

C ENTRO ESPAÑOL DE DERECHOS REPROGRÁFICOS

Find us:

www.cedro.orgwww.cedro.org

blog.cedro.org blog.cedro.org

twitter.com/cedroenlineatwitter.com/cedroenlinea

facebook.com/cedrocomunicacionfacebook.com/cedrocomunicacion