Intellectual Property Office (2018)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Intellectual Property Office (2018)
Title: Copyright Term Extension for Sound Recordings Post Implementation Review
Author(s): Intellectual Property Office
Year: 2018
Citation: Intellectual Property Office (2018) Copyright term extension for sound recordings Post-Implementation Review
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Data from Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) on session fund and royalty payments

Discussions with stakeholders within the music industry as well as users of music

Evidence gathered for a European Parliament Committees report on the term extension

Data Type: Primary and Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2018
Funder(s):
  • Intellectual Property Office

Abstract

EU Directive 2011/77 EU sought to enhance the welfare of performers and record labels by extending the period that they can be remunerated for their sound recordings and performances. This period was extended from 50 to 70 years following publication. This means that where sound recordings and performances would have come out of copyright protection after 50 years, they are now protected for another 20 years.

To date this has provided additional protection to works published between 1963 and 1968. However, the impact of this policy will grow over time and by 2033 there will be a full 20-year period for which recordings will have been protected.

The post implementation review (PIR) considered evidence from a range of sources. This included creative industry stakeholders and a report conducted for the European Union.

On the whole the policy has been successful at realising its intended aims and has resulted in an additional £600k being paid out to session musicians and approximately an additional £1.7m in royalties to artists.

Main Results of the Study

The main findings of the study are as follows:

  • Approximately £600,000 has already been paid out to performers via the session fund, which is money that session musicians (who transferred their performer’s rights to the producer of the sound recording in return for a single payment) would not have otherwise received.
  • Approximately £1.7 million has been paid out in royalties to performers for the public performance and broadcast uses of music for which the copyright would have otherwise expired. While these payments are a significant benefit to artists whose copyright would have otherwise expired, there is an equivalent cost to other business.
  • This legislation primarily results in transfers between businesses, with a small net cost of administration associated with elements such as the session fund. Artists will also receive revenue from record sales and other exploitations of their works, however, it has not been possible to quantify this as part of this review.
  • The impact of the legislation will grow over time, therefore we will continue to monitor this and will undertake a second post implementation review in 2023.
  • One unintended consequence we have identified is that the term extension could, in some cases, result in lower returns for artists from sales of their music. However, any potential losses to artists from not being able to release their own music should be offset by the increased royalty payments artist receive when their music is played in public or broadcast.
  • We have found no evidence of any artists making use of the “use it or lose it provision” which allows performers to request the copyright to be terminated if record companies do not make the recording available in sufficient quantities.
  • However, one potential unintended consequence of this is that, where there are multiple performers on the recording, if one performer requests the copyright to be terminated then all performers could lose out on royalty payments.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

"The nature of the measure means the impact in the initial years will be fairly limited, but will continue to grow over time. This is because only a small number of recordings are covered by the directive (as of 2017 only recordings from 1963 to 1967), however, by 2033 there will be a 20 year period over which recordings will be covered by the directive. As a result, the full impact and consequences of the directive will not fully be established until then."

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Green-tick.png
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Green-tick.png
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Green-tick.png
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

{{{Dataset}}}