Copyright term extension: back on the agenda

Lurking quietly among the European Union's various IP legislation goals for the last two years is a proposal to extend the term of copyright in sound recordings and performances from 50 to 70 years, starting from the date of fixation or publication.

The IPKat reported on this issue when it was being debated in the European Parliament back in 2008 and 2009, a debate which resulted in Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voting in favour of an amended proposal which scaled back the term extension from 95 years to 70 years, and included mechanisms to ensure that a percentage of the royalties arising during the extended term would go to session musicians, regardless of pre-existing contractual arrangements.

After the vote, silence ... until now


Then everything went relatively quiet.  Non-European readers might assume that, once the European Parliament voted in favour of a Directive, the law would be adopted, subject perhaps to some sort of Grand Vizier character applying a signature or quasi-monarchical seal to a suitably ornate document, but European lawmaking is rarely so straightforward (or colourful, alas).

The legislative triangle of the EU (by Ssolbergj)

Most legislation requires "co-decision" by both the Parliament and the Council (which is composed of the national governments), as explained in the useful little graphic on the left. When the copyright term extension proposal went to the Council, however, it lost all momentum and appeared to have been placed in cold storage, reportedly due to a blocking minority of countries.

Now, due to the reported thawing of Denmark's position, possibly due to global warming [Merpel says: or as a result of interested lobby groups and countries applying the heat?] the proposal has come out of the refrigerator.  According to the agenda for tomorrow's COREPER meeting, published yesterday, the proposal to amend Directive 2006/116/EC (that's the Term Directive to you and me) is up for deliberation as item 18, suggesting it will be back on the Agenda for the Council to decide before too long (thanks to Alexander von  Mühlendahl for additional clarification).

Incidentally, a group of 40 MEPs, led by Swedish Pirate Party representative Christian Engström, had tried to snatch the ball back from Council in recent months, relying on a procedural mechanism which allows a newly elected Parliament to reconsider items voted by the previously dissolved Parliament, but he reported yesterday in his blog that his attempt had been turned down, leaving the way open for Council to adopt the proposal.


The UK position: Do Ministers listen to Professors?

Various commentators, including Mr Engström, note with some disappointment that the UK appears committed to supporting the term extension, despite having commissioned the Hargreaves Review which advised exactly the opposite. Can this be true, the IPKat wonders?

The Hargreaves Report

Well, it's not precisely true to say that Hargreaves concluded that the UK should vote against term extension, if one reads the Report with a pedantic eye, but on the other hand, Mr Engström's summary is not all that far off the mark.

Professor Hargreaves noted that "IP policy has not always been developed in a way consistent with the economic evidence", and as an example of such legislative short-sightedness he cites exactly these proposals to extend the term of copyright in sound recordings Regarding such extensions he says:

Economic evidence is clear that the likely deadweight loss to the economy exceeds any additional incentivising effect which might result from the extension of copyright term beyond its present levels. This is doubly clear for retrospective extension to copyright term, given the impossibility of incentivising the creation of already existing works, or work from artists already dead.

Despite this, there are frequent proposals to increase term, such as the current proposal to extend protection for sound recordings in Europe from 50 to 70 or even 95 years. The UK Government assessment found it to be economically detrimental. An international study found term extension to have no impact on output.

However, the Hargreaves Report then catches itself in the act of giving advice on something outside its remit, shrugs its shoulders, and makes it pretty clear which way the advice would point if only someone had thought to ask:

Legitimate questions of culture, fairness and “just reward” for creators also arise, and have tended to dominate the debate on copyright issues. Indeed, they were explicitly cited by the previous Government as justification for extension of copyright term, despite the economic evidence. These questions are clearly significant, and it is not part of the Review’s task to determine how they should be resolved. We simply invite Government to consider that as copyright becomes increasingly economically important, it is vital that economic considerations are fully weighed in the balance. ... If the current imbalance in the debate on copyright is allowed to continue, the economic price will be high.

Culture Minister Ed Vaizey © Jon Jordan

So presumably the UK Government took these words to heart, and thought long and hard about the "likely deadweight loss to the economy"?  Culture Minister Ed Vaizey certainly appears to have rather cheerfully suppressed any second thoughts he might have had as a result of such soul-searching.  In a reassuringly concise account of his struggle to balance the various factors and the doubts which Professor Hargreaves' warnings undoubtedly caused him, in July he told the AGM of the British Phonographic Industry:

And while we are in the area of copyright, I would just like to add that the Government will continue to support moves in Europe to extend copyright in sound recordings.

So while Hargreaves (almost) said that extending term to 70 years was a bad idea, and certainly counselled against taking this matter lightly, the UK Government has nevertheless signalled that it will vote for term extension when it comes before the Council.

This Kat finds it disappointing that, despite all the talk of a brave new evidence-based method of making policy, there has been no appreciable change in the UK Government's approach to the wisdom of ever-increasing copyright terms.  This would seem to be a prime candidate for policy reversal or reconsideration, if Professor Hargreaves is to be believed.

Letter from AmeriKat: James Bond's gun, pre-1972 recordings, ITC patent fun, and Walgreens' "Flying W"

For the past couple of week's the AmeriKat has been balancing a pretty hefty schedule of deadlines and late nights. Her early morning starts and late night returns were beginning to grate on her nerves; the processional commute was feeling more and more like a chore than an opportunity to mindlessly follow the stream of commuters. So twice last week, while on her way to work, she stopped her blaring iPod, opened her eyes and scanned the inhabitants of her carriage. Besides the usual set of businesspersons flicking automatically through the pages of the Metro and the tourists straining their eyes at the Tube maps, she spied two distinctive objects out of the usual commuter selection: a spider and a ladybug. The spider was making a webfrom the top of one pole to the other and then casually swinging from its silk between stops. The ladybug was making its way up the arm of a large, burly looking man while he delicately watched its progress. From the otherwise indistinct, one can always find distinctiveness. (picture, left - the AmeriKat playing with the said ladybug)

Bond's gun a hit at the USPTO: Something else that has been held to be distinctive last week, this time by the USPTO, was James Bond's Walther PPKhandgun. The makers of the spy's classic weapon had previously attempted to register the gun as a trade mark, but the USPTO had concerns as to whether the gun had, in the maker's mind, a "definite aura" and "mystique". To convince the USPTO examiners otherwise, the makers commissioned a blind survey of individuals over 18 years old who own or plan to own a handgun. The results of the survey showed that about 54% of those surveyed were able to identify the PPK gun, many of whom also mentionedJames Bond as the reason for their identification. So with this convincing data before the examiner this time, the USPTO held that the mark had acquired distinctiveness and that

"it stands to reason that a party would only attempt to replicate another party's trade dress or product configuration, under license or not, if that trade dress or product configuration is perceived by the consumers as distinctive."

Although not uncommon by any means, the provision and weight of survey evidence afforded by the USPTOin this case may result in future applications for shape marks, or indeed any application that argues acquired distinctiveness, necessarily having such survey evidence in support. For more information see this report from The Hollywood Reporter.

Copyright Office to investigate pre-1972 sound recordings: Where were you in 1971? If you are the AmeriKat's age you weren't even an idea yet, but for those who remember 1971 Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" was topping the charts, Jim Morrison was found dead in a Paris bathtub, and the US Supreme Court ruled that the Pentagon Papers could be published. And if you were a sound recording in the US at this time, the federal government didn't even recognize you as a work. However, this may be changing with the US Copyright's announcement last week that it will be investigating the issue of pre-1972 sound recordings.

Before launching into this story, the AmeriKat must give readers a short lesson into this area of US copyright. In 1909, the US Congress held that the US Constitution did not allow copyright to cover sound recordings because sound recordings were not "writings". Therefore, the US Government (i.e., federal government) did not legislate on sound recordings. This left individual US states to legislate this area for themselves which left a patchwork quilt of the length and strength of protection for pre-1972 sound recordings. In 1976, when copyright law was next changed, the US government then legislated for the inclusion of sound recordings, but of course this legislation was not retrospective so therefore pre-1972 recordings were governed by the old system. Obviously, the uncertainty of the protection for these recordings in terms of scope and when the works will enter the public domain is a problem increasingly encountered today.

Recently the US Congress has directed the US Copyright Office to conduct a study to investigate whether it may now be a good idea to bring pre-1972 recordings under federal jurisdiction. The areas of investigation the study is to address include the effect of public access to the recordings and the economic impact such federal jurisdiction would have on the rights-holders of these recordings. The Copyright Office has published a notice of inquiry requesting written comments from all interested parties and has requested input on the effect that such federal protection would have upon these sound recordings. The AmeriKat, in her rose-tinted view, can only think that consistency and predictability of copyright can only be a good thing - although she is sure that rights holders of pre-1972 works may vehemently disagree. Initial comments must be submitted by 20 December 2010, with reply comments due 18 January 2011. For further information on the protection of pre-1972 sound recordings see this paper prepared by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at the Washington College of Law.

ITC side with Nokia in Apple patent spat - The US International Trade Commission (ITC) staff stated last week in a pre-trial memo that Nokiashould not be found liable for infringing Apple's patents. The statement came at the start of the ITC trial on the issue. Apple had requested the ITC to block imports of Nokia phones using the Symbian operating system as they were allegedly infringing four of Apple's patents. Nokia contends that some of Apple's patent claims are invalid, and the remaining claims were not infringed. ITC staff, who act as an impartial third party in ITC cases on behalf of the US public, declared that the evidence "will not establish a violation", but that if the judge was minded to find for infringement then it followed that the Nokia phones should be blocked. Judge Charles Bullock is expected to issue his findings in February 2011. Any decision by Judge Bullock will be subject to review by the six-member commission. For more info on the Apple/Nokia battle see previousAmeriKat reports here and here. For more information see this report in Bloomberg and Ars Technica.

Walgreens sues Wegmans: In the UK, if you require a medicine or shampoo you go to Boots. In the US you go to Walgreens. Walgreens, unlike Boots, is much larger, equipped with drive-up windows to pick up and drop off prescriptions during your busy day, and has aisles devoted to non-pharmaceutical products, such as school supplies, greeting cards and junk food. It is safe to say that there is probably very few Americans who have not shopped at Walgreens at some point. Now Walgreens is suing the New York-based supermarket chain Wegmans, alleging that Wegman's logo is too similar to Walgreens'. Walgreen's filed their trade mark infringement complaint against Wegman's two weeks ago in Virginia. Walgreen alleges that its "flying W" deserves protection due to its use from 1951. Wegmans contend, however, that the "W" it started using in 2008 was a revival of a logo that it had used in the 1930s. A spokesperson for Wegman's said that there was no confusion between the two logos. According to a reportSouthern Tier of New York, people that the news channel interviewed were apparently more confused about why the lawsuit was filed than about the "W"s alleged similarity at all.

Pratt & Whitney to stop Rolls-Royce?: Pratt & Witney, manufacturers of jet engines, filed an US International Trade Commission (ITC) complaint last week to stop shipments of Rolls-Royce engines to Boeing for the production of the 787 Dreamliner (picture, right). For the past few months the two companies have been engrossed in disputes when in August Rolls-Royce filed a lawsuit alleging that the fan stages on some of Pratt's products infringed Rolls-Royce's swept fan blade. Pratt then issued a separate complaint in September alleging that Rolls-Royce had mislead the USPTO in order to be granted the patent for the fan blade. Next stop for Pratt this past week was filing a complaint for patent infringement against Rolls-Royce at the US ITC as well in the UK's High Court for infringement of their Trent 1000 and 900 engines. Trent 1000 and 900 engines are used in the Boeing 787 and Airbus's A380 respectively. All in all, not a good week for Rolls-Royce following last week's scare on a Quanta's flight to Sydney. The AmeriKat has not seen the complaint from Pratt & Whitney, but given the allegations that a design flaw is to blame for the scare alleged to have been caused by the Rolls-Royce engine on the Quanta's flight, is it a good move to now allege that that the Rolls-Royce engine infringes their engines? For more information click here.

European Parliament backs 95 year copyright

The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has today approved legislation extending (in the words of the press release) 'the copyright protection for music compositions on physical devices (i.e. digital forms are excluded) to 95 years.' [The IPKat assumes this means sound recordings].

An amendment has been made to 'to prevent the use of previous contractual agreements to deduct money from the additional royalties'.

Session musicians will benefit from a fund to which producers will have to contribute at least 20% of royalties they gain from the term extension.

The legislation will be reviewed after 3 years, and then every 4 years. The Commission has also been asked to look at whether a similar extension is justified in the audiovisual sector.

A plenary vote will take place in March.

The IPKat can't claim to be thrilled by the decision, but he suspects that the writing was on the wall. He notes that 95 years is almost double the current 50 years, but at the same time, he can't help but think that all the terms are rather arbitrary. He's puzzled by the exception for digital recording - doesn't this emasculate the extension (or is there something about the way that recordings are usually made that the Kat doesn't know?)

STOP PRESS: The IPKat thanks Chris Ellins from the University of Westminster for this link to the Legal Affairs Committee's documents.

Prospective costs order; term extension - Gowers speaks

How much will it cost? asks Mr Justice Arnold

The IPKat once again thanks Lisa Chiarelli, this time for bringing his attention to the FT’s coverage of the decision by Mr Justice Arnold to require Allen & Overy to declare what its projected costs are in the battle between RIM and Visto.

The decision covers the second case between RIM and Visto. In the first case, A & O racked up over £5m in costs for a five day trial.

Mr Justice Arnold called the current costs system “inadequate and unsatisfactory” and called for a more “proactive” approach to controlling costs.

The IPKat (who would dearly love to see a copy of the decision) says this sounds jolly sensible. It’s fair that the losing party should have to pay costs, but if costs are allowed to spiral out of control then more defendants will be forced to settle, not because they necessarily have a bad case, but rather because of a fear of handing over a blank cheque for costs.

STOP PRESS: the full text of the decision is now available from Bailii here.

Also in the FT

Andrew Gowers’ response to the UK’s volte-face on the copyright term for sound recordings.

Breaking news: UK Government backs sound recording term extension

In a surprise move, the Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, has announced that the UK Government will now support the extension of the copyright term for sound recordings to 70 years.He told today's UK Music creators conference that he and John Denham, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, had agreed the move, which goes against the recommendations of the Gowers Review.

The IPKat isn't impressed. He doubts whether such sudden changes in approach can be the result of sound investigation and research into their likely effects.

Report by Music Week here. The IPKat thanks Lisa Chiarelli for bringing this story to his attention.

Extension of sound recordings and performers’ rights: an issue of fairness

The extension of copyright term in sound recordings and performers’ rights was the subject of a Competition Law Association meeting held earlier this month in London. Now that the dust has settled, the IPKat is pleased to carry this report from the elegant pen of CLA stalwart Justin Watts (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer). Writes Justin:

"The Competition Law Association held a lively and passionate debate on 8 July, on the extension of copyright in performances and sound recordings. The speakers were Professor Lionel Bently, the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Cambridge University, and Richard Mollet, the Director of Public Affairs at the BPI. Both speak with considerable authority on the subject, Professor Bently having been central to the submission of evidence against term extension as considered in the Gowers Report, and Mr Mollet leading the BPI’s engagement with the UK government and the EU. Unsurprisingly though, their views were poles apart. Sir John Mummery needed to be as much a referee as a chairman.

Sir John, whose interest in copyright is long established and well known, opened the evening by noting that CLA events provide a welcome opportunity for cross-fertilisation of IP and competition thinking, given the propensity on the one hand of IP lawyers to know too little about competition law, and on the other hand of competition lawyers to know too little about IP law.

The title for the evening was itself contentious: “Extension of Sound Recording and Performers’ Rights: an Issue of Fairness.” Professor Bently added a subtitle: “What’s love got to do with it? The shift from reason to emotion in the proposal to increase the copyright term for sound recordings.” The thesis of his talk was that the Commission’s Valentine’s Day announcement favouring term extension marked the shift in the debate from a basis is reason to one founded on emotional appeal alone.

In setting up the rationalist background of his title, Professor Bently noted that the 2004 EC Staff Working Paper, the Gowers Report, and the EC-commissioned IVIR report had all approached the question rationally, with evidence-based and economic reasoning. Each had come out against extension. Categorising the counter-arguments under 5 headings, he analysed and found fault in the record industry’s justifications based on incentivisation, lost income, incentive for digitisation, harmonisation with the US, and trading interests. Incentivatisation in particular was a baseless argument given that there could be no creative incentive present in extending copyright in an existing work. Similarly, incentivising digitisation provided no rational basis for term extension – if that objective required incentives, the rational approach would be to reward the digitiser, not the existing owner. The case against term extension had been definitively underwritten in the well-known “17 Nobel prize-winning economists’ brief”. That brief supported the view that improving value far in the future provided no significant incentive for current investment.

The first significant milestone in the shift from a rational, economic view was the May 2007 report of the Select Committee on Media, Culture and Sport. That report based its arguments on treatment of creators, rather than economics. This was followed by the Commission’s report also supporting extension. Although full details are awaited, the basis appears similarly to be grounded in creators’ interests.

Professor Bently observed that extending performer’s rights comes at a cost to society. It is a political question as to whether that cost is worth paying, but the correct approach is to identify the cost and decide that it is worth bearing. The professor added that, in his own view, the cost was indeed a cost worth paying. However, he raised several notes of concern: if extension is really to protect the interests of performers, (a) why does it also apply to sound recordings, (b) why is it not an inalienable right of the performer, and (c) why is it for 95 years rather than the life of the performer? He noted that the problems with term extension are such that UK IP academics, the Max Planck Institute and promenant economists have lined up to oppose it.

It will come as no surprise that Richard Mollet did not agree with much of that. Speaking as the representative of 400 BPI members and with an eye on broader music interests, he emphasised that extension is indeed a question of fairness. He noted that BPI works in partnership with musicians and performers and that the symbiotic relationship of performers and the music industry is underpinned by the rights structure. The perspective of the sector, he stressed, is that copyright represents a “moral right” of the creator, not as that term is understood by lawyers but in a more fundamental sense. This, he suggested, was reflected in the approach that had been taken in Select Committee and was now being taken in the EU. Noting that there is no current proposal aimed at equalisation of copyright terms, he said that nonetheless there was a considerable perceived unfairness in having such a wide disparity of terms for different copyrights. Term extension goes some way to address that unfairness.

The EU had proposed a “use it or lose it” provision on term extension which helped protect public interests and ensure that sound recordings were maintained current. The EU’s proposal to include a levy supporting a fund for session musicians was a welcome benefit for a group whose average annual income was no more than £10,000. Praying in aid support from the government, opposition and Liberal Democrats, he observed that there is cross-party consensus behind the extension proposals that reflects the underlying unfairness in the present regime. He suggested that there is a necessary co-existence between performers’ rights and rights in sound recordings, attributable to the symbiotic relationship of performers and the music industry.

He illustrated the present unfairness by reference to a hypothetical CD. The artwork, lyrics and music all attract protection for 70 years after the death of the respective creator, compared with only 50 years from the event for the sound recordings and performers’ rights. He challenged the economic evidence against extension, relying on counter-examples in a PwC report which had failed to identify any significant pricing difference between copyright and out-of-copyright music. To illustrate this point, he observed that iTunes charge 79p a track regardless of the existence of sound recording protection or lack thereof, and concluded that extending copyright would not act to the disbenefit of consumers. He emphasised that the BPI does not, and never has, argued that extension would incentivise investment; rather, it affects the ability to invest. Market investment is not easy to attract to the specialist model of the music industry and revenues from extended copyright would provide much needed investment capital. In summary, therefore, extension was a fair step to take.

In questions from the floor, Peter Roth of Monckton Chambers asked how it was that term extension had itself been extended from the proposed 70 years to the currently proposed 95 years. Mr Mollet explained that this had resulted from considerations of parity with the US. Professor Bently commented that this lacks rational basis, given that the US is obliged to extend national treatment.

Trevor Cook of Bird & Bird asked a question concerning the disparity existing between different forms of IP (20 years for patents, 25 years for designs etc). Was it right that sound recordings, which could be analogised to an investment-based activity like inventing or design, should attract protection for so long a term? Mr Mollet responded that the closest analogy for sound recordings was with the creative activity in music and the fair approach was to provide an analogous length of protection.

Sir John Mummery commented that the burden of proof in seeking a change in the law ought to lie on those asking for it. He asked: was there clear evidence that the current period was not working properly? Mr Mollet suggested that the evidence was clear, that the current period is hurting performers. Professor Bently observed that the legal regime has been well-known for many years and provides no basis for a retrospective change.

The debate continued for some time, with further questions from the floor considering pricing models and the cost to the public, the comparison of the term for other copyright works and the existing and proposed term for performers’ rights and sound recordings, and the reliability of the economic evidence on each side of the argument.

Left: spare a thought for those artistes whose pension rights depend on term extension (illustration from Caroline's Cats)

In summing up and thanking the speakers, Sir John cautioned that changes in the law do not always have the effects intended by the legislature. He reminded the audience of the Redwood litigation, concerning reversionary interests under the 1911 Act. The Act provided for a second 25 year term of copyright after the author’s death, which reverted to the author’s estate. In the event, the principal beneficiaries had proven to be those who acquired portfolios of reversionary interests, and perhaps also the lawyers involved in the ensuing litigation.

Thanks are due to Bird & Bird for hosting a fascinating event, and to the CLA for organising it. For further details of the CLA, please contact its secretary Sharon Horwitz".

Good news for Sir Cliff and eBay

Commission adopts extended performers rights

The European Commission has today adopted a proposal for 'extending the term of protection for recorded performances and the record itself from 50 to 95 years'. [Press release here]. This is said to benefit both performers and record companies. This is designed to 'bridge the income gap' when the sound recordings of performances made in an artist's twenties expires when they reach their seventies.

At the same time, the Commission appears to be tinkering with more general copyright protection for musical works. According to the press release:

In addition, when it concerns a musical composition, which contains the contributions of several authors, the Commission proposes a uniform way of calculating the term of protection. Music is overwhelmingly co-written. For example, in an opera, there are often different authors to the music and to the lyrics. Moreover, in musical genres such as jazz, rock and pop music, the creative process is often collaborative in nature. According to the proposed rule the term of protection of a musical composition shall expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, be it the author of the lyrics or the composer of the music.

The IPKat isn't entirely sure if he has read this correctly, but it looks like the Commission is proposing to lump together musical and literary authorial works set to music and grant a single term. If this is correct, this goes against our traditional notions of how such works are viewed, and the same logic (of treating both works as one) could conceivably apply elsewhere, such as in judging infringement.

The Commission is also launching a Green Paper on on the long-term future of copyright policy in the knowledge intensive areas. This will cover scientific publishing, the digital preservation of Europe's cultural heritage, orphan works, consumer access to protected works and the special needs for the disabled to participate in the information society.

The IPKat notes that this is another example of IP rights being expanded to the max. For one thing, record companies appear to be getting some sort of slice of the pie. The 95 year term is generous (though the Kat notes that this would be an increasingly common lifespan). He remains unconvinced that recording artists have a right to be remunerated for life. The seeming changes to authorial copyright also go for the maximum by extending protection of the whole work to the last to die of the group (previously different elements of the work could potentially come out of copyright at different times.


eBay wins in US

Things are looking up for eBay. A US District Court held on Monday that the internet auctioneer had not infringedTiffany's trade marks in failing to prevent fake Tiffany goods to be sold through its site. According to the New York Times, the court found that it was the responsibility of trade mark owners, and not online retailers, to police the online sites for infringers. The US decision runs counter to the emerging trend it Europe, where eBay has been found to have infringed in both France and Germany.

The IPKat can't help but compare this to Napster. The difference is though that eBay's business model isn't built on third party infringement. Quite the opposite - it creates bad will if consumers unwittingly purchase 'fake' goods. The whole thing's a bit of a mess though. Will this mean that US eBay will need to be blocked off to European consumers?

U-turn for U2?

According to a tiny article in The Times Online on Monday,

"the [UK] Government has indicated that it will support a policy change that will allow pop stars to earn more money from their recordings. Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, said that the Government would revisit its opposition to extending the copyright term on sound recordings from 50 to 95 years".

There's nothing on the Department of Culture, Media and Sport website to substantiate this, though. Can any wise reader put the IPKat right as to what's going on?

French connections

France backs term extension for sound recordings

It seems that the show’s not over for an extension to the copyright term of sound recordings. According to an article in Friday’s Times, France is due to make the extension a priority of its upcoming six-month presidency of the EU, despite opposition from the UK and Germany. According to the French Culture Minister, Christine Albanel

“Today, whole swathes of the recording catalogue of the 1950s and 1960s, representing a significant part of the national pop heritage, are falling progressively into the public domain…That creates an obvious problem of fairness. Artists who began their careers very young are being stripped today of all remuneration from their first recordings.”

The IPKat can’t quite share Ms Albanel’s indignation. There aren’t many other industries where success in your youth guarantees you an income for life.

For French-speakers only

Speaking of the French, they will be the only people able to understand last week’s Art.8(5) (dilution and unfair advantage) CFI case regarding the CAMEL trade mark, which still isn’t available in English. Even worse, Professor Lionel Bently has informed the IPKat that the ECJ’s judgment in Procter & Gamble v. OHIM, Case C-107/03P (23 Sept 2004) is not available in English from the ECJ’s website. The IPKat could (very very grudgingly) understand why a CFI judgment mightn’t be translated instantly, but a more than three year wait for an ECJ decision is very poor.

EU on term extention for sound recordings

The IPKat has learnt from a combination of Boing Boing and Slashdot that the EU appears to have ditched plans to extend the term of sound recordings, and also to require ISPs to filter content.

The website of the CULT committee (don't get too excited - CULT stands for Culture and Education, rather than anything more sinister) did not have the latest set of minutes, recording this decision.

Can any of the IPKat's readers offer any further information?