Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overlapping Rights in Different Business Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Remuneration of Copyright Owners

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 27))

  • 903 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the problems stemming from the fragmented copyright system. The multitude of rights and right holders has led to huge transactions costs for the exploitation, license, dissemination, and enforcement of copyright. Copyright divisibility and fragmentation also result in legal issues surrounding overlapping exclusive rights in a single subject. This problem may not only bring about controversies over copyright license, but also generate uncertainties for startup companies that build their business models on digital content. This chapter then evaluates current policy proposals addressing the issues of fragmented copyright and overlapping exclusive rights. Those proposals include consolidating current bundles of exclusive rights, and adopting an implied license doctrine to the incidental use of copyrighted work based on one single exclusive right. Finally, this chapter assesses whether a more streamlined collective copyright management mechanism can solve the issue of overlapping rights.

Jyh-An Lee is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    17 U.S.C. §106.

  2. 2.

    CDPA 1988 ss. 16-23.

  3. 3.

    17 U.S.C. §201(d)(2); CDPA 1988 ss.90(2)(b).

  4. 4.

    A. Kohn / B. Kohn (2000), 362; M.A. Lemley (1997), 570; J. Litman (2010), 20; J.W. Natke (2007), 486, 495.

  5. 5.

    M.A. Leaffer (2010), 294.

  6. 6.

    M.A. Lemley (1997), 574; J.W. Natke (2007), 486.

  7. 7.

    J.W. Natke (2007), 486.

  8. 8.

    Text accompanying note 1-2.

  9. 9.

    P. Goldstein (2003), 189.

  10. 10.

    Text accompanying note 3; W. Cornish / D. Llwelyn / T.F. Aplin (2013), 525; D. Gervais (2010), 10.

  11. 11.

    J. Litman (2004), 18.

  12. 12.

    N.Y. Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 495-96 (2001).

  13. 13.

    D. Gervais (2010), p. 10.

  14. 14.

    See, e.g., P. Mysoor (2013), 183-84; J.W. Natke (2007), 497.

  15. 15.

    See, e.g., M.A. Lemley (1997), 570.

  16. 16.

    D. Gervais / A. Maurushat (2003), 15, 20.

  17. 17.

    D. Gervais (2010), 13.

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., D. Gervais (2000), 81; D. Gervais / A. Maurushat (2003), 21. Some commentators argue that by allowing each contracting country to decide upon the relationship between audiovisual performers and film producers, Article 12 of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances actually weakens the protection for performers, who are principally in an inferior bargaining position. G. Pessach (2014), 86-89. Similar criticisms are made on the “statutory presumptions,” a proposal that copyrights are systematically transferred to corporate entities. T. Lüder (2007), 26-27.

  19. 19.

    See, e.g., D. Gervais (2010), 10, 12; T. Lüder (2007), 23-24, 41; W.W. Fisher III (2004), 59-67.

  20. 20.

    See, e.g., T. Lüder (2007), 23-24; W.W. Fisher III (2004), 46-59.

  21. 21.

    See, e.g., E. Vanheusden (2007), 47; S. Dusollier / C. Colin (2011), 834.

  22. 22.

    Information Infrastructure Task Force (1995), 213-225.

  23. 23.

    D. Gervais / A. Maurushat (2003), 22.

  24. 24.

    See, e.g., D. Gervais (2010), 2.

  25. 25.

    See, e.g., J. Litman (2007), 1917; J.W. Natke (2007), 495-498.

  26. 26.

    Information Infrastructure Task Force (1995), 213-225.

  27. 27.

    M.A. Lemley (1997), 570; J. Litman (2004), 21.

  28. 28.

    R.P. Merges (1996), 1317; J.W. Natke (2007), 500.

  29. 29.

    T. Lüder (2007), 24-25.

  30. 30.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 621.

  31. 31.

    Id., 637-639.

  32. 32.

    Id., 39.

  33. 33.

    Id., 633-635.

  34. 34.

    Id., 633-635, 659.

  35. 35.

    Id., 624.

  36. 36.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 626.

  37. 37.

    M.A. Heller / R.S. Eisenberg (1998), 698, 700.

  38. 38.

    Id., 699.

  39. 39.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 625.

  40. 40.

    N. Elkin-Koren (2005), 381.

  41. 41.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 625-626; M.A. Heller / R.S. Eisenberg (1998), 698.

  42. 42.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 659.

  43. 43.

    D. Gervais (2010), 13; J.W. Natke (2007), 500.

  44. 44.

    M.A. Lemley (1997), 57-72.

  45. 45.

    L.P. Loren (2003), 698.

  46. 46.

    M.A. Lemley (1997), 571.

  47. 47.

    L.P. Loren (2003), 700; L. Lessig (2004), 223.

  48. 48.

    M. Heller (2008), 37-43.

  49. 49.

    L.P. Loren (2003), 677.

  50. 50.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 659.

  51. 51.

    J.W. Natke (2007), 496.

  52. 52.

    H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976), 61-62.

  53. 53.

    J. Litman (2007), 1916-1917; M.A. Lemley (1997), 571.

  54. 54.

    D. Gervais (2010), 10-11; M.A. Lemley (1997), 568; J.W. Natke (2007), 486.

  55. 55.

    J. Litman (2010), 42; D. Gervais (2010), 10.

  56. 56.

    J. Litman (2004), 19-20; M.A. Lemley (1997), 567-68; J.W. Natke (2007), 486.

  57. 57.

    M.A. Lemley (1997), 571; see also J.W. Natke (2007), 498, 501.

  58. 58.

    M.A. Lemley (1997), 568; L.P. Loren (2003), 716; J.W. Natke (2007), 495-496.

  59. 59.

    M.A. Heller / R.S. Eisenberg (1998), 698-699.

  60. 60.

    FAPL EWHC 1411 (2008) (Ch); 3 C.M.L.R. 12 (2008).

  61. 61.

    FAPL EWHC 1411 (2008) (Ch); 3 C.M.L.R. 12, 262 (2008).

  62. 62.

    FAPL (C-403/08)(2011) E.C.D.R. 8, 202-203.

  63. 63.

    P. Mysoor (2013), 173.

  64. 64.

    FAPL EWHC 108 (2012) (Ch); 2 C.M.L.R. 16, 63 (2012).

  65. 65.

    T. Lüder (2007), 14.

  66. 66.

    WCT Art. 9(4); WPPT Art. 7, 11, and 16; E.C. Copyright in the Information Society Directive Art. 2.

  67. 67.

    WCT Art. 8; E.C. Copyright in the Information Society Directive Art. 3.

  68. 68.

    WCT Art. 8; WPPT Art. 10, 14, and 16; E.C. Copyright in the Information Society Directive Art. 3.

  69. 69.

    D. Gervais (2000), 81.

  70. 70.

    K.E. Beyer (2014), pp. 6-7; P. Goldstein / P.B. Hugenholtz (2010), 328.

  71. 71.

    Berne Convention, 1971 Paris Text Art. 11, 11bis, and 11ter.

  72. 72.

    P. Mysoor (2013), 168.

  73. 73.

    WCT Art. 8; EU Copyright Directive Art. 3(1).

  74. 74.

    P. Goldstein / P.B. Hugenholtz (2010), 329; T. Lüder (2007), 33-36.

  75. 75.

    D. Gervais (2000), 82; T. Lüder (2007), 26. There is one distinction between the right of making available to the public and the traditional right of communication to the public: the former is granted to authors, performers, and producers; whereas the latter is only accorded to authors. EU Copyright Directive Art. 3.

  76. 76.

    K.E. Beyer (2014), 11.

  77. 77.

    M.A. Lemley (1997), 574; W.W. Fisher III (2004), 160; D. Gervais (2010), 10.

  78. 78.

    J. Litman (2004), 19.

  79. 79.

    Country Road Music, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 325, 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

  80. 80.

    Id., 327.

  81. 81.

    Id., 327-328.

  82. 82.

    R.M. Hilty / S. Nérisson (2013), 229.

  83. 83.

    J. Drexl (2014), 483.

  84. 84.

    Id.

  85. 85.

    J. Drexl / S. Nérisson / F. Trumpke / R.M. Hilty (2013), 328-329.

  86. 86.

    Id.

  87. 87.

    J. Litman (2007), 1917; M.A. Heller / R.S. Eisenberg (1998), 700; J. Litman (2010), 20.

  88. 88.

    P.B. Hugenholtz / M. van Eechoud / S. van Gompel / L. Guibault / N. Helberger (2006), 164; T. Lüder (2007), 26; see also J. Litman (2010), 43.

  89. 89.

    J. Litman (2006), 180-186; J. Litman (2010), 43-45.

  90. 90.

    J.W. Natke (2007), 505.

  91. 91.

    J. Litman (2007), 1917; see also J.W. Natke (2007), 504.

  92. 92.

    H.G. Henn (1955), 418.

  93. 93.

    J.W. Natke (2007), 493-494.

  94. 94.

    Id., 494.

  95. 95.

    Id.

  96. 96.

    Id., 492.

  97. 97.

    J.W. Natke (2007), 503; R.C. Cooter / T. Ulen (2012), 165.

  98. 98.

    J.W. Natke (2007), 505.

  99. 99.

    M.B. Nimmer / D. Nimmer (1992), 14-121.

  100. 100.

    17 U.S.C. §1202(c).

  101. 101.

    M.A. Heller / R.S. Eisenberg (1998), 700.

  102. 102.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 626, 640.

  103. 103.

    M.A. Heller / R.S. Eisenberg (1998), 698.

  104. 104.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 641.

  105. 105.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 655.

  106. 106.

    R.C. Cooter / T. Ulen (2012), 166.

  107. 107.

    J. Litman (2007), 1917.

  108. 108.

    Id.

  109. 109.

    Copyright reform can even go further to implement the concept of “implied license” in other transactions concerning any single exclusive right, see J. Litman (2010), 46-47.

  110. 110.

    See, e.g., Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990).

  111. 111.

    See text accompanying note 87.

  112. 112.

    G. Calabresi (1982); R. Oman (1994), 21-22, n.8 (describing the difficulty of changing the IP law).

  113. 113.

    D.J. Bainbridge (2007), 87.

  114. 114.

    Id.

  115. 115.

    D. Gervais / A. Maurushat (2003), 15.

  116. 116.

    M. Heller (2008), p. 72; R. Aoki / A. Schiff (2008), 199; S. Dusollier / C. Colin (2011), 817-818; J. Drexl / S. Nérisson / F. Trumpke / R.M. Hilty (2013), 18-19; R.P. Merges (1996), 1295.

  117. 117.

    D. Gervais / A. Maurushat (2003), 16.

  118. 118.

    J.H. Cohen (2001), 135; M.A. Lemley (1997), 571.

  119. 119.

    M. Heller (2008), 190.

  120. 120.

    M.A. Lemley (1997), 571.

  121. 121.

    D. Gervais (2010), 11; M. Bouchard (2010), 311.

  122. 122.

    D. Gervais / A. Maurushat (2003), 20; J. Litman (2010), 20.

  123. 123.

    D. Gervais (2010), 12.

  124. 124.

    S. Stoke (2002), 169-170.

  125. 125.

    M. Bouchard (2010), 320.

  126. 126.

    A. Gowers (2006), 45; R.P. Merges (1996), 1377.

  127. 127.

    However, CPCC only focuses on royalties associated with music works. M. Bouchard (2010), 314.

  128. 128.

    See text accompanying supra note 139 and note 21.

  129. 129.

    Cf. R.C. Cooter / T. Ulen (2012), 140; M.A. Heller (1998), 760; Id., 657.

  130. 130.

    M.A. Heller (1998), 642-643.

  131. 131.

    J.-A. Lee (2010), 291-292.

  132. 132.

    R.P. Merges (2008), 1187-1188.

  133. 133.

    J.-A. Lee (2010), 292-293.

  134. 134.

    R.H. Coase (1937), 386.

  135. 135.

    R.C. Ellickson (1991), 64-166; E. Ostrom (1990), 182-184; M.A. Heller / R.S. Eisenberg (1998), 698; C. Rose (1986), 711.

  136. 136.

    M.A. Heller / R.S. Eisenberg (1998), 700; R.P. Merges (1996), 1319, 1340-1342.

  137. 137.

    R.P. Merges (1996), 1321.

  138. 138.

    J.W. Natke (2007), 504 (predicting that “the Supreme Court is not likely to revive indivisibility in the absence of legislative action”).

  139. 139.

    D. Gervais / A. Maurushat (2003), 23-25; D. Gervais (2010), 17.

  140. 140.

    D. Gervais / A. Maurushat (2003), 24.

  141. 141.

    M. Ricolfi (2007), 297-301; R.P. Merges (1996), 1298 (proposing the “electronic clearinghouses” where all copyright transactions can take place in one electronic marketplace).

  142. 142.

    T. Lüder (2007), 19.

References

  • Aoki, R. / Schiff, A. (2008), Promoting Access to Intellectual Property: Patent Pools, Copyright Collectives, and Clearinghouses, R&D Management 38(2), 189-204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, D.I. (2007), Intellectual Property, 6th ed., Pearson Education Limited

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, K.E. (2014), Taking the “Hype” Out of Hyper-Linking: Linking Online Content Not Grounds for U.S. Copyright Infringement, IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review 55, 1-29

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, M. (2010), Collective Management in Commonwealth Jurisdictions: Comparing Canada with Australia, in: D. Gervais (Ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 307-338, Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabresi, G. (1982), A Common Law for the Age of Statutes, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R.H. (1937), The Nature of the Firm, Economica 4, 386-405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.H. (2001), The Future of Copyright Collective Societies, E.I.P.R. 23(3), 134-139

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooter, R. / Ulen, T. (2012), Law and Economics, 6th ed., Pearson Education Limited

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, W.R. / Llwelyn, D. / Aplin, T.F. (2013), Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl, J. (2014), Collective Management of Copyrights and the EU Principle of Free Movement of Services after the OSA Judgment—In Favour of a More Balance Approach, in: K. Purnhagen, P. Rott (Eds.), Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation, 459-488, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl, J. / Nérisson, S. / Trumpke, F. / Hilty, R.M. (2013), Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market COM (2012)372, 44 IIC, 322-350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dusollier, S. / Colin, C. (2011), Peer-to-Peer and Copyright: What Could Be the Role of Collective Management?, Columbia Journal of Law & Arts 34(4), 809-835

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkin-Koren, N. (2005), What Contracts Cannot Do: The Limits of Private Ordering in Facilitating a Creative Commons, Fordham Law Review 74, 375-422

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellickson, R.C. (1991), Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher III, W.W. (2004), Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment, Stanford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, D. (2000), Electronic Rights Management Systems, Journal of World Intellectual Property 3, 77-95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, D. (2010), Collective Management of Copyright: Theory and Practice in the Digital Age, in: D. Gervais (Ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 1-28, Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, D. / Maurushat, A. (2003), Fragmented Copyright, Fragmented Management: Proposals to Defrag Copyright Management, Canadian Journal of Law & Technology 2, 15-33

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, P. (2003), Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox, Rev. Ed., Stanford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, P. / Hugenholtz, P.B. (2010), International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice, 328, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowers, A. (2006), Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, 45, available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6/E/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf

  • Heller, M.A. (1998), The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, Harvard Law Review 111(3), 621-688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M.A. (2008), The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives, Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M.A. / Eisenberg, R.S. (1998), Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, Science 280, 698-701

    Google Scholar 

  • Henn, H.G. (1955), “Magazine Rights”—A Division of Indivisible Copyright, Cornell Law Quarterly 40, 411-474

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R.M. / Nérisson, S. (2013), Collective Copyright Management, in: R. Towse, C. Handke (Eds.), Handbook of the Digital Creative Economy Cultural Economics, 222-234, Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholtz, P.B. / van Eechoud, M. / van Gompel, S. / Guibault, L. / Helberger, N. (2006), The Recasting of Copyright & Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy, University of Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Infrastructure Task Force, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure (1995), The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, A. / Kohn, B. (2000), Kohn on Music Licensing, 4th ed., Aspen Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaffer, M.A. (2010), Understanding Copyright Law, LexisNexis

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.-A. (2010), Organizing the Unorganized: The Role of Nonprofit Organizations in the Commons Communities, Jurimetrics Journal 50(3), 275-327

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (2004), Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity, Penguin Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M.A. (1997), Dealing with Overlapping Copyrights on the Internet, University of Dayton Law Review 22(3), 547-585

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, J. (2004), Sharing and Stealing, Hastings Communications & Entertainment Law Journal 27, 1-48

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, J. (2006), Digital Copyright, 2nd ed., Prometheus Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, J. (2007), Lawful Personal Use, Texas Law Review 85, 1871-1920

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, J. (2010), Real Copyright Reform, Iowa Law Review 96(1), 1-55

    Google Scholar 

  • Loren, L.P. (2003), Untangling the Web of Music Copyrights, Case Western Reserve Law Review 53, 673-721

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüder, T. (2007), The Next Ten Years in E.U. Copyright: Making Markets Work, Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal 18, 1-60

    Google Scholar 

  • Merges, R.P. (1996), Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, California Law Review 84(5), 1293-1393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merges, R.P. (2008), Locke for the Masses: Property Rights and the Products of Collective Creativity, Hofstra Law Review 36, 1179-1190

    Google Scholar 

  • Mysoor, P. (2013), Unpacking the Right of Communication to the Public: A Closer Look at International and EU Copyright Law, Intellectual Property Quarterly 2013(2), 166-185

    Google Scholar 

  • Natke, J.W. (2007), Collapsing Copyright Divisibility: A Proposal for Situational or Medium Specific Indivisibility, Michigan State Law Review 2007, 483-532

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimmer, M.B. / Nimmer, D. (1992), Nimmer on Copyright, LexisNexis

    Google Scholar 

  • Oman, R. (1994), Intellectual Property after the Uruguay Round, J. Copyright Society U.S.A. 42, 18-38

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pessach, G. (2014), The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances—The Return of the North?, IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review 55(1), 79-104

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricolfi, M. (2007), Individual and Collective Management of Copyright in a Digital Environment, in: P. Torremans (Ed.), Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, 283-314, Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. (1986), The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently Public Property, University of Chicago Law Review 53, 711-781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoke, S. (2002), Digital Copyright Law and Practice, Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanheusden, E. (2007), Performers’ Rights in European Legislation: Situation and Elements for Improvement, Association of European Performers’ Organisations

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China

    Jyh-An Lee

Authors
  1. Jyh-An Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jyh-An Lee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Singapore Management University , Singapore, Singapore

    Kung-Chung Liu

  2. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Reto M. Hilty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lee, JA. (2017). Overlapping Rights in Different Business Models. In: Liu, KC., Hilty, R. (eds) Remuneration of Copyright Owners. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 27. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53809-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53809-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53808-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53809-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation