[en] Private copying exceptions are a core feature of many copyright laws around the world. EU Member States may provide for such an exception on the condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation. Although the European Court of Justice (ECJ) interprets the fair compensation requirement as an autonomous concept of EU law, it concedes Member States broad discretion when determining the design of their compensation scheme. Most of them have adopted a private copying exception, regularly in conjunction with a levy system operated by collecting societies. Luxembourg’s Copyright Act enshrines a private copying exception on the condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation. The law refers to a Grand-Ducal regulation to lay down the conditions for determining and collecting it, but no corresponding act has ever been promulgated. This article interprets the existing legal framework in Luxembourg considering the ECJ’s interpretation of Article 5(2)(b) DIR 2001/29/EC and assesses the need to amend Luxembourg’s copyright law. It proposes establishing a fair compensation scheme funded through the general state budget and managed through an existing collective management organisation thereby taking into account the government’s existing financial support of social and cultural establishments that already benefit reproduction rightholders.
Precision for document type :
Review article
Disciplines :
European & international law
Author, co-author :
STIERLE, Martin ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Department of Law (DL)
External co-authors :
no
Language :
English
Title :
Fair Compensation for Private Copying: Is There a Need to Amend Luxembourg’s Copyright Law?
Publication date :
13 December 2024
Journal title :
Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law
For a global overview, see BIEM, CISAC and Stichting de Thuiskopie, Private Copying, Global Study (2020) accessed 18 September 2024. Originally, the ability to reproduce copyrighted materials for private use was intended to be enshrined as one of three express exceptions set out in art 9(2) of the Berne Convention; the UK, however, suggested a more general wording. See MRF Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-step Test. An Analysis of the Three-Step Test in International and EC Copyright Law (Kluwer International 2004) 50.
See eg MA Esteve Pardo & A Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Compensation for Private Copying in Europe: Recent Developments in France, Germany and Spain’ (2013) 35(8) EIPR 463 (regarding national legislation within the EU); BIEM/CISAC/Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 1) (overview of various national systems).
Art 5(2) of the Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L 167/10 leaves it open as to whether private copying is implemented as an exception or limitation of the reproduction right (art 2 of the same Directive). The European Court of Justice also referred to allowing private copying as ‘derogation’ (Case C-426/21, Ocilion IPTV Technologies, ECLI:EU:C:2023:564, para 30). For a discussion on terminology, see S Karapapa, Private Copying (Routledge 2012) 9 f with further references. As the exception/limitation concept is most commonly described as a private copying “exception”, we use “exception” throughout this article.
For examples, see JP Quintais, ‘Private Copying and Downloading from Unlawful Sources’ (2015) IIC 66, 70.
See PB Hugenholtz, ‘The Story of the Tape Recorder and the History of Copyright Levies’ in B Sherman & L Wiseman (eds), Copyright and the Challenge of the New (Wolters Kluwer 2012) 179, 184 ff. See also Quintais (n 4) 75 f.
It is fair to say that, historically, legal realism was, and remains, the governing consideration of private copying exceptions. See A Lucas-Schloetter, ‘La rémunération pour copie privée dans la tourmente (1re partie)’ (2013) Légipresse 597, sec I.A (noting that the concept of private copying exceptions comes into play when it is difficult or even impossible to ensure respect for the rightholder’s exclusive right); C Geiger, F Schönherr & S Karapapa, ‘The Information Society Directive’ in I Stamatoudi & P Torremans (eds), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (Edward Elgar 2021)para 11.119 (referring to ‘reasons of practicability’ as the justification for the private copying exception).
Karapapa (n 3) 25 ff. with further references.
J Reinbothe, ‘Private Copy Levies’ in IA Stamatoudi (ed), New Developments in EU and International Copyright Law (Kluwer 2016) 299, 302; M Ficsor, Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (3rd edn WIPO Publication 2022) 14.
Ficsor (n 8) 14.
Case C-467/08 Padawan, ECLI:EU:C:2010:620, para 46; Case C-263/21, Ametic, ECLI:EU:C:2022:644, para 37 (both decisions referring to practical difficulties in identifying private users and obliging them to compensate rightholders for the harm caused to them).
Privacy concerns were addressed for the first time by the German Federal Court of Justice in its seminal decision, Personalausweise (BGH GRUR 1965, 104, 107) which became a corner stone of levy systems in Germany and other countries. See Hugenholtz (n 5) 187 f.
L. Guibault, Copyright Limitations and Contracts: An analysis of the overridability of limitations on copyright, (Kluwer Law International 2002) 79.
Karapapa (n 3) p. 11 f (describing the private copying exception in EU law as a statutory licence, while distinguishing statutory licences and the mandatory collective administration of rights). The idea that payment of equitable remuneration can be understood to have a mitigating effect can be traced back to German copyright law of the 1950s and 1960s, which had an impact during the discussions of the 1967 Stockholm Conference. Senftleben (n 1) p. 56.
See eg Reinbothe (n 8) p. 302 (referring to the public interest in unhindered access and the interests of the economic interests of the rightholders).
For the difference between so-called property rules and liability rules, compare G Calabresi and AD Melamed, ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’ (1972) 85 Harv L Rev 1089 and C Geiger, ‘Promoting Creativity through Copyright Limitations: Reflections on the Concept of Exclusivity in Copyright Law’ (2010) 12 Vand J Ent Tech L 515, 529 (arguing against use of the term ‘liability rule’ for private copying remuneration).
BIEM/CISAC/Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 1).
For an overview of the functioning of a system of collectivisation, see Ficsor (n 8) pp. 13 ff.
Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market Text with EEA relevance [2014] OJ L 84/72 (“Collective Management Directive”).
See eg PB Hugenholtz, L Guibault and S van Geffen, ‘The Future of Levies in a Digital Environment’ [March 2003] accessed 18 September 2024 (arguing that it has been possible to control private copying of protected since the advent of digital rights management) with further references.
JL Putz, Le droit d’auteur (2nd edn, Lacier 2013) para 338 ff; K Manhaeve and T Schiltz, ‘Luxembourg’ in B Lindner & T Shapiro (eds), Copyright in the Information Society. A Guide to National Implementation of the European Directive (2nd edn, Edward Elgar 2019), para 20.043 ff.
V Sokolov, ‘Bulgaria’ in Lindner/Shapiro (eds) (n 20) para 5.40.
PPM Grimaud & SL Azzopardi, ‘Malta’ in Lindner/Shapiro (eds) (n 20) para 21.32.
For the situation in Luxembourg as of this writing, see secs B and D.
After unprecedented lobbying by Bulgaria’s consumer electronic industry, Bulgaria enacted amendments to its copyright law in 2011. At that point, Copy BG, the collective management organization appointed by reproduction rightholders, stopped collecting levies. A complaint with the European Commission was made, but the matter has yet to be solved as of this writing. Sokolov (n 21) para 5.41; BIEM/CISAC/Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 1) p. 260.
In Malta, a levy system for private copying was planned but never implemented. As a result, no remuneration is collected. Grimaud/Azzopardi (n 22) para 21.35; BIEM/ CISAC/Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 1) p. 280.
Indeed, Luxembourg’s national website states: ‘Intellectual property. Your ideas and creations are entitled to exemplary protection’ accessed 18 September 2024.
See eg Wikipedia accessed 18 September 2024.
InfoSocDir (n 3) art 5(2)(a) and (b).
Putz (n 20) para 60.
InfoSocDir (n 3).
Loi du 18 avril 2001 sur les droits d’auteur, les droits voisins et les bases de données, Mémorial A 50 (author translation: “Act of 18 April 2001 on authors’ rights, related rights, and databases”) (the “2001 Copyright Act”). Since its initial enactment, the 2001 Copyright Act has been amended and consolidated several times, most recently by Loi du 1er avril 2022 portant modification de la loi modifiée du 18 avril 2001 sur les droits d’auteur, les droits voisins et les bases de données en vue de la transposition de la directive 2019/789 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 17 avril 2019 établissant des règles sur l’exercice du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins applicables à certaines transmissions en ligne d’organismes de radiodiffusion et retransmissions de programmes de télévision et de radio, et modifiant la directive 93/83/CEE du Conseil, Mémorial A 159, (collectively, the 2001 Copyright Act, the 2004 Amendment (n 34), and all other amendments thereto, are referred to as “Luxembourg’s Copyright Act” or the “amended Copyright Act”).
Author translation of “Des exceptions aux droits d’auteur,” the title of sec 2 of the 2001 Copyright Act.
Author translation of the original art 10(4°) of the 2001 Copyright Act, which reads, in the relevant part: “Lorsque l’œuvre a été licitement rendue accessible au public, l’auteur ne peut interdire: […] la reproduction d’une œuvre effectuée à titre gratuit par le copiste et pour son usage strictement privé, non destinée à une utilisation ou à une communication publiques [sic], et à condition que cette reproduction ne porte pas préjudice à l’édition de l’œuvre originale.”
Loi du 18 avril 2004 modifiant 1. la loi du 18 avril 2001 sur les droits d’auteur, les droits voisins et les bases de données, et 2. la loi modifiée du 20 juillet 1992 portant modification du régime des brevets d’invention. (the “2004 Amendment”).
(emphasis added). Author translation of the amended art 10(1)(4°) incorporated in the 2004 Amendment, which reads, in relevant part: “Lorsque l’œuvre, autre qu’une base de données, a été licitement rendue accessible au public, l’auteur ne peut interdire […] la reproduction sur tout support par une personne physique pour son usage privé et à des fins non directement ou indirectement commerciales, à condition que les titulaires de droits reçoivent une compensation équitable, qui prend en compte l’application des mesures techniques visées aux articles 71ter à 71quinquies de la présente loi aux œuvres concernées. Les conditions de fixation et de perception, ainsi que le niveau de cette compensation sont fixés [sic] par règlement grand-ducal.”
Putz (n 20) para 346; Manhaeve/Schiltz (n 20) para 20.076.
Règlement grand-ducal du 16 mars 2005 portant organisation de la Commission des droits d’auteur et des droits voisins, Mémorial A 52.
Doc. parl. 5128, 3 f.
H Grethen, 36 session, 15 February 2001 (author translation). See also Manhaeve/Schiltz (n 20) para 20.072.
Doc. parl. 5128, 4.
Ibid 3.
Ibid.
Ibid 4.
Ibid 3.
Hugenholtz/Guibault/van Geffen (n 19).
See eg AA Quaedvlieg, ‘The Netherlands’ in Lindner/Shapiro (eds) (n 20) para 22.091 with further references, in particular the Gerkens Report.
COM (88) 172 final, p. 99 ff.
See Lucas-Schloetter (n 6) p. 597 (stating that private copying levies are not harmonized with the InfoSocDir only enshrining the principle of fair compensation); E Rosati, Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union (OUP 2023) 242 (describing InfoSocDir’s ability to harmonize law on private copying as weak).
Emphasis added.
S Bechtold, ‘Information Society Directive’ in T Dreier & PB Hugenholtz (eds), Concise European Copyright Law (2nd edn, Kluwer 2016), art 5, n 3 (b).
Esteve Pardo/Lucas-Schloetter (n 2) p. 463; T Shapiro, ‘Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright in the information society’ in Lindner/Shapiro (eds) (n 20) para 2.117.
See, however, A Metzger, ‘Rechtsfortbildung im Richtlinienrecht: Zur judikativen Rechtsangleichung durch den EuGH im Urheberrecht’ (2017) ZEuP 836, 860 (describing the ECJ’s method in these decisions as lying somewhere between interpretation and development of law).
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10).
Ibid, para 30; see also, Case C-277/10 Luksan, ECLI:EU:C:2012:65, para 93; Case C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie, ECLI:EU:C:2011:397, para 22; Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi, ECLI:EU:C:2015:144, para 19; Case C-470/14 EGEDA and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2016:418, para 20.
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) paras 32 and 37.
Ibid, para 46 ff; Case C-572/13 Hewlett-Packard Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2015:750, para 70.
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) para 46 ff; Case C-572/13 Hewlett-Packard Belgium (n 56) para 70.
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) para 48.
Compare Article 5(2)(b) of COM(97) 628 final, which did not refer to compensation and Recital 26 of COM(97) 628 final, which reads, in the relevant part: “Member States should be allowed to provide for an exception […] for private use; whereas this may include the introduction or continuation of remuneration schemes to compensate for the prejudice to rightholders; […] it appears justifiable to refrain from further harmonization” (emphasis added).
Reinbothe (n 8) 310.
Ibid.
Ibid.
J Reinbothe, ‘Die EG-Richtlinie zum Urheberrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft’ (2001) GRUR International 733, 738; Hugenholtz/Guibault/van Geffen (n 19) p. 36; S von Lewinski & MM Walter, ‘Information Society Directive’ in MM Walter and S von Lewinski (eds), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (OUP 2010) para 11.5.24; Bechtold (n 50) art 5, n 3 (b); L Guibault, ‘Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC’ (2010) JIPITEC 55, 58; Geiger/ Schönherr/Karapapa (n 6) para 11.114.
Reinbothe (n 8) p. 316; S Bechtold (n 50), art 5, n 3 (b) (mentioned in 1st edn but not in 2nd edn).
Bechtold (n 64) art 5, n 3 (b) (mentioned in 1st edn but not in 2nd edn). See also J Poort & JP Quintais, ‘The Levy Runs Dry. A Legal and Economic Analysis of EU Private Copying Levies’ (2013) JIPITEC 205, para 18.
Ibid, (n 10) para 37, 39 ff.
Ibid; see also Case C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 54) para 24. This approach has been criticized by Reinbothe (n 8) p. 318 (arguing that harm is mentioned as only one of the relevant aspects in the recitals).
Cf. Poort/Quintais (n 65) para 31; Shapiro (n 51) para 2.138 (understanding the earlier decisions of the ECJ as referring to the introduction of the exception).
J Reinbothe, ‘Compensation for Private Taping Under Sec. 53 (5) of the German Copyright Act’ (1981) IIC 36, 36 (describing, in 1981, the provision granting remuneration from the producers of sound and visual recording equipment as the only provision of its kind in the world). For the history of copyright levies, see Hugenholtz (n 5) p. 179 (asserting, eg, that the “German levy system […] became a model for the world”); Quintais (n 4) p. 76 (describing the German system as a staple of most Member States’ national copyright laws and the impact on the Stockholm revision of the Berne Convention).
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) para 42.
Case C-572/13 Hewlett-Packard Belgium (n 56) para 69. See also Geiger/Schönherr/Karapapa (n 6) para 11.114 f. For a critique of the approach, see B Hazucha, ‘Private copying and harm to authors–compensation versus remuneration’ (2017) 133 LQR 269, 277 ff.
InfoSocDir (n 3) Recital 38 mirrors this understanding. See Reinbothe (n 8) 315 ff; von Lewinski/Walter (n 63) para 11.5.25. For a different view, see B Koch & J Druschel, ‘Entspricht die Bestimmung der angemessenen Vergütung nach §§ 54, 54a UrhG dem unionsrechtlichen Konzept des gerechten Ausgleichs? (2015) GRUR 957, 967 f.
Bechtold (n 64) art 5, n 3 (b) (mentioned in the 1st but not 2nd edn); C Pflüger, Gerechter Ausgleich und angemessene Vergütung. Dispositionsmöglichkeiten bei Vergütungsansprüchen aus gesetzlichen Lizenzen (Nomos 2017), 63.
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 (1992) OJ L 346//61 (repealed).
Case C-245/00 SENA, ECLI:EU:C:2003:68, para 37; Case C-192/04 Lagardère Active Broadcast, ECLI:EU:C:2005:475, para 50.
Bechtold (n 50) art 5, n 3 (b) (with a similar interpretation of the decisions); Hazucha (n 71) 293 ff. (arguing that the ECJ follows, de facto, a remuneration approach labelled as a compensation approach).
Case, VEWA, ECLI:EU:C:2011:442, para 29; Case C-277/10 Luksan (n 54) para 103.
For a suggested limit, see AG Opinion, Case C-260/22 Seven.One Entertainment Group, ECLI:EU:C:2023:583, para - 24 (AG Collins argued that a compensation that over- or underestimates the harm caused to rightholders is incompatible with the fair balance that must be maintained between the interests and fundamental rights of rightholders and users, together with the public interest); see also Lucas-Schloetter (n 6) sec I.A; A Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Exceptions – Rémunération pour copie privée – Appareils reconditionnés – Double paiement (non)’ (2024) (90) Propr Intell 50, 52 (referring to a similar discussion in France regarding refurbished devices).
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) paras 32, 37.
Ibid, para 37.
Case C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 54) para 23; Case C-521/11 Amazon.com International Sales and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2013:515, para 20; Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi (n 54) para 20; Case C-470/14 EGEDA and others (n 54) para 22; Case C-263/21 Ametic (n 10) para 36.
Case C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 54) para 34; Case C-470/14 EGEDA and others (n 54) para 21.
Case C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 54) para 34, Case C-470/14 EGEDA and others (n 54) para 21. See also Pflüger (n 73) pp. 86 ff.; P Homar, System und Prinzipien der gesetzlichen Vergütungsansprüche des Urheberrechts [Österreich 2021], para 863.
See sec A, above.
Shapiro (n 51) para 2.116, fn. 175; Hazucha (n 71) pp. 273 ff (explaining the UK’s pre-Brexit position). Luxembourg’s legislature did much the same (doc. parl. 5128, 4 (arguing, inter alia, that there might be no obligation to pay or to make an additional payment in certain cases, although it did not explicitly question the general obligation to compensate)); Metzger (n 52) p. 858 (arguing that Recital 35 is vague).
For purposes of our analysis, we have numbered each sentence comprising Recital 35. Emphasis added.
British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 1723 (Admin), para 199.
Reinbothe (n 8) 317.
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) para 39.
Joined Cases C-457/11 to C-460/11, VG Wort and others, ECLI:EU:C:2013:426, para 37 ff.
Poort/Quintais (n 65) para 32 ff; Hazucha (n 71) 278; Shapiro (n 51) para 2.153.
Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi (n 54) para 65. Shapiro (n 51) para 2.153.
A Lauber-Rönsberg, Urheberrecht und Privatgebrauch. Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung des deutschen und britischen Rechts (Nomos 2011) 65; Reinbothe (n 8) p. 317 (both referring to a Commission statement).
Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi (n 54) para 62.
Ibid.
Poort/Quintais (n 65) para 91 (arguing that there may not even be any harm in these cases).
British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 1723 (Admin), para 184 f. See E Rosati, ‘ECJ links fair compensation in Arts. 5(2)(a) and (b) of the InfoSoc Directive to actual harm requirement’ (2016) GRUR International 399, 401.
Copyright and Rights in Performance (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2361). See on this amendment Hazucha (n 71) pp. 271 ff.; Rosati (n 48) pp. 243 ff.
I Hargreaves, Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth [UK Intellectual Property Office 2011] para 5.28 ff accessed 18 September 2024; M Kretschmer, ‘Private Copying and Fair Compensation: An Empirical Study of Copyright Levies in Europe’ [UK Intellectual Property Office 2011] 19 ff accessed 18 September 2024. See also, S Karapapa, ‘A Copyright Exception for Private Copying in the United Kingdom’ [2013] 35(3) E.I.P.R. 129. Compare K Grisse & S Koroch, ‘The British Private Copying Exception and Its Compatibility with the Information Society Directive’ [2015] 10(7) JIPLP 562 (doubting the compatibility of 28B of the CDPA with the InfoSocDir).
Hargreaves (n 99) para 5.30 f.
Ibid.
British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 1723 (Admin), para 208 ff.
British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 1723 (Admin).
Ibid, para 208 ff.
Ibid, para 249.
Ibid.
Ibid, para 49 (referring to the reports by Hargreaves and Kretschmer).
Ibid, para 271 (emphasis in the original).
Ibid, para 271 (emphasis in the original).
See E Rosati, ‘ECJ links fair compensation in Arts. 5(2)(a) and (b) of the InfoSoc Directive to actual harm requirement’ (2016) GRUR International 399, 401 (arguing that Member States are not prevented from drafting a tight private copying exception).
See references in n 81.
Hazucha (n 71) p. 281.
JL Putz, Recueil de Propriété intellectuelle (Larcier 2022) 113. The only Luxembourg court decisions dealing with a private copying exception appear to be TA Lux., com. 8 December 2010, no 113017 and CSJ, 13 June 2012, no 37207 (affirming the court of first instance decision), which addressed the German Copyright Act, not Luxembourg’s Copyright Act.
Ministère de l’Économie et du Commerce Extérieur, Les droits d’auteur: le guide (2010) 10 accessed 18 September 2024.
Ministère de la Culture, Guide pratique: Droits d’auteur, droits voisins et autres droits dans le secteur du patrimoine culturel numérique. (Version 1.0, 5 July 2021) 08 accessed 18 September 2024.
Ibid.
Putz (n 20) para 340.
It is more restrictive than the EU framework in one aspect: it allows a natural person to copy only for his or her own private use, whereas the InfoSocDir also permits copying for the private use of another natural person. The literature on Luxembourg’s copyright law, however, advocates for an extended interpretation that would include copies for friends and family members (see eg Putz (n 20) para 343; Manhaeve/Schiltz (n 20) para 20.046 (adhering to the French concept of ‘family circle’)), which would be in line with EU law (von Lewinski/Walter (n 63) para 11.5.31; Quintais (n 4) 69; Shapiro (n 51) para 2.123) and eliminate this difference.
For example, Section 28B CDPA required the template to be either the individual’s own copy of the work, or a personal copy of the work made by the individual while Luxembourg’s law does not specify similar aspects. See also Hazucha (n 71) pp. 276 f. (explaining that the scope and applicability of the UK amendment was quite narrow in contrast to InfoSocDir’s Article 5(2)(b)).
Case C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 54) para 36.
Putz (n 20) para 338.
Oral Comments by B Krieps, quoted in M Carey, ‘Right to private copy’ [13 April 2007] accessed on 18 September 2024.
Manhaeve/Schiltz (n 20) para 20.076.
See references in n 115.
Doc. parl. 5128, 3.
As the law refers to fair compensation as a condition for an exception to the exclusive reproduction right, the copier needs to compensate (or at least offer to compensate) the rightholder in order to avoid an infringement of the reproduction right. Hence, a private party cannot copy and compensate only upon a claim of the rightholder.
See eg art 16d of the Dutch Copyright Act and § 54h(1) of the German Copyright Act which requires the debtor to pay to a collecting society or the rightholder to claim remuneration thereby via such (so-called ‘Verwertungsgesellschaftenpflichtigkeit’), see T Dreier, ‘§ 54h Verwertungsgesellschaften; Handhabung der Mitteilungen’ in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz Kommentar (7th edn, CH Beck 2022) para 1.
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) para 19; Case C-470/14 EGEDA and others (n 54) para 19.
Cf Shapiro (n 51) para 2.131.
It reads: “This may include the introduction or continuation of remuneration schemes […].” (emphasis added).
Case C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie (n 54) para 34.
See sec A above.
Doc. parl. 5128, 3.
See references in n 81.
Although partially outdated, for concepts implemented in France, Germany, and Spain, see Esteve Pardo/Lucas-Schloetter (n 2) pp. 469 f.
§ 54d of the German Copyright Act (with its attachment) before its reform of 2008.
Germany’s post-2008 reform system of extended self-regulation.
France’s Commission pour la Rémunération Copie Privée.
Règlement grand-ducal du 16 mars 2005 portant organisation de la Commission des droits d’auteur et des droits voisins, Mémorial A 52.
For a detailed overview, see Rosati (n 48) pp. 245 ff.
Case C-435/12 ACI Adam and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:254, para 31 (if the initial source of the copy was not lawful, no fair compensation is due for copying it).
Joined Cases C-457/11 to C-460/11 VG Wort and others (n 92) para 78 (reproductions made through a single process using a chain of devices, a levy may be imposed on each device, provided that the overall compensation owed is not substantially different from the amount fixed for a reproduction obtained through a single device).
Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi (n 54) para 29 (fair compensation is due for multimedia (eg mobile phone memory cards) if at least one of the medium’s function permits private copying; however, the amount thereof should take into account whether private copying is the medium’s main or ancillary purpose as well as the relative importance of the medium’s capacity to make such copies, such that no consideration need be collected, if the rightholder’s prejudice if determined to be minimal).
Case C433/20 Austro-Mechana, ECLI:EU:C:2022:217, para 54 (InfoSocDir’s Art 5(b)(2) precondition for a private copying exception extend to cloud storage).
The copyright community in the Netherlands is hotly debating whether tethered downloads must be taken into account when calculating the required compensation. See eg The Hague Court of Appeal, HP c.s. / SONT and Thuiskopie, 22 March 2022; O Jani & M Vonthien, ‘Zur Einordnung von Tethered Downloads als Privatkopien gemäß § 53 Abs. 1 UrhG’ (2023) ZUM 73.
Poort/Quintais (n 65) para 91 (stating that there may be even not harm at all in these cases).
See references in n 81.
Geiger/Schönherr/Karapapa (n 6) para 11.119. Unlike other countries, France, for example, charges levies even for second-hand products: Copie France, ‘Private Copying Remuneration Tariffs in France as from February 1st 2023 (VAT not applicable)’ (January 2023) accessed 18 September 2024. For private copying levies on refurbished devices see also, A Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Exceptions – Rémunération pour copie privée – Appareils reconditionnés – Double paiement (non)’ (2023) (87) Propr Intell 32; Lucas-Schloetter (n 78) p. 50.
ZPÜ, VG Wort and VG Bild-Kunst, ‘Gemeinsamer Tarif. USBSticks und Speicherkarten’ (24 June 2019) accessed 18 September 2024.
SONT, ‘Decree on Private Copying Levies 2023 – 2024’ accessed 18 September 2024.
See Copie France (n 151) p. 151.
See n 153.
ZPÜ, VG Wort and VG Bild-Kunst, ‘Gemeinsamer Tarif. Mobiltelefone’ [4 January 2016] accessed 18 September 2024.
See Copie France (n 151) p. 151.
At the author’s request, Luxembourg’s National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (STATEC) provided the author with unpublished, unofficial import statistics for the years 2022 and 2023, which information the author retains on file.
STATEC Code No. 85235110
STATEC Code No. 85171300
Lucas-Schloetter (n 6) under sec I.A (describing private copying levies as a legal right to remuneration in France). See also, Geiger (n 15) p. 530.
Lauber-Rönsberg (n 93) p. 231 (describing the remuneration as compensation at the level of a licensing fee based on an individual contract); Lucas-Schloetter (n 6) under I.A (describing private copying levies as a legal right to remuneration in Germany); Esteve Pardo/Lucas-Schloetter (n 2) 466; Koch/Druschel (n 72) pp. 959 ff. (describing the German remuneration principle and its relation to fundamental rights); H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht [10th edn., Mohr Siebeck 2021) no 507 (describing remuneration for private copying as the functional equivalent to the exploitation right).
For the discussion on the term vergoeding (art 16c Dutch Copyright Act) as opposed to redelijke tegemoetkoming, see Quaedvlieg (n 46) para 22.088 with further references.
See sec C.I above.
Doc. parl. 5128, 3 f.
A levy system was reinstated in 2017 in the course of the proceedings relating to Case C-470/14 EGEDA and others (n 54). See M García Léon, ‘Spain’ in Lindner/Shapiro (eds) (n 20) para 28.055 ff; Rosati (n 48) p. 254.
Kopiosto, ‘Compensation for Private Copying’ accessed 18 September 2024. See also, K Harenko, ‘Finland’ in Lindner/Shapiro (eds) (n 20) para 11.18. Most recently, Finland’s private copying compensation experienced a drastic cut which caused a heavy debate including the call to reverse the decision of Finland’s government. See CISAC, ‘Creators’ rights organisations call for drastic cut in Finland’s private copying compensation to be reversed’ accessed 18 September 2024.
Norwaco, ‘Copying for Private Use’ accessed 18 September 2024.
Case C-470/14 EGEDA and Others (n 54).
Case C-470/14 EGEDA and others (n 54) para 24. Compare Metzger (n 52) 860 (apparently suggesting that the decision rejects any compensation mechanism funded by the general state budget).
Case C-470/14 EGEDA and others (n 54) para 41. The ECJ pointed out that under levy systems, persons who have reproduction equipment, devices, and media and then make them available to natural persons must pay the levy, but they are not prevented from passing the amount of the private copying levy to such persons by including it in the price charged (para 33). Thus, the burden of the levy may ultimately be borne by the private user who pays the price for the use of such media (para 34).
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) para 53.
Case C-521/11 Amazon.com International Sales and Others (n 81) para 28 ff; Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi (n 54) para 44 ff. For the details of such exceptions, see Case C-110/15 Nokia Italia andOthers, ECLI:EU:C:2016:717, para 24 ff; Case C-263/21 Ametic (n 10) para 33 ff (holding that the exception can be administered by a legal person established and controlled by intellectual property management organisations).
Case C-467/08 Padawan (n 10) para 53; Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi (n 54) para 47; Case C-263/21 Ametic (n 10) para 45.
Case C-470/14 EGEDA and Others (n 54) para 39 f.
Case C-470/14 EGEDA and Others (n 54) para 41.
It is unclear whether the right to fair compensation is waivable. The ECJ held in Case C-277/10 Luksan (n 54) that the reproduction rightholder’s right to fair compensation might not be waivable. It decided this explicitly for authors of films.
It was disputed whether broadcasting organisations receive compensation: See von Lewinski/Walter (n 63) para 11.5.35; Shapiro (n 51) para 2.141. The ECJ confirmed their eligibility in C-260/22 Seven.One Entertainment Group, ECLI:EU:C:2023:900, para 21 ff.
Case C-572/13 Hewlett-Packard Belgium (n 56) para 47 ff.
See art L311-6 of the French Copyright Act.
Association of Collective Management of Audiovisual Works in Luxembourg ASBL (“ALGOA”), a Luxembourg non-profit association, represents the Association of International Collective Management of Audiovisual Work (“AGICOA”) accessed 18 September 2024.
Luxembourg Organization for Reproduction Rights ASBL (“Luxorr”), a Luxembourg non-profit association accessed 18 September 2024.
Society of Music Authors, Composers and Editors Luxembourg SC (“SACEM Luxembourg”), a Luxembourg civil company accessed 18 September 2024.
Case C-521/11 Amazon.com International Sales and Others (n 81) para 53. See also Article 12(4) of the Collective Management Directive.
Kopiosto (n 167).
A Lucas-Schloetter, ‘La rémunération pour copie privée dans la tourmente (2e partie)’ (2013) Légipresse 661, sec C.III
