Collective Management of press clippings in Spain Susana Checa Prieto Brussels, 10th June 2011

Consequences of the legal framework SWOT analysis Summary Conclusion Outline Legal framework Consequences of the legal framework SWOT analysis Summary Conclusion 2 2

TWO RULES FOR TWO DIFFERENT USES 1. Legal framework (I) TWO RULES FOR TWO DIFFERENT USES FOR PROFIT COMPILATIONS PCAs CLIENTS INTERNAL USE OF CLIPPINGS Art. 32 Spanish Intellectual Property Act Art. 17 Spanish Intellectual Property Act

Quotation includes the compilation of newspaper and magazine articles 1. Legal framework (II): COMPILATIONS Spanish Intellectual Property Act (Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, modified by Law 23/2006) Quotation includes the compilation of newspaper and magazine articles LEGAL EXCEPTION For profit compilations (i.e.- commercial purpose: product sold to a third party) TWO OPTIONS No objection from author: remunerated legal exception Objection from author: individual permission or collective licence

individual permission or collective licence is required 1. Legal framework (III): INTERNAL USE OF CLIPPINGS Spanish Intellectual Property Act (Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, modified by Law 23/2006) Quotation includes the compilation of newspaper and magazine articles LEGAL EXCEPTION Internal use of clippings GENERAL RULE individual permission or collective licence is required Exclusive right of author to decide the use of the work

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

For profit compilation 2. Consequences of the legal framework (I) STEP 1 For profit compilation PCAs LEGAL EXCEPTION STEP 2 END USERS Internal use of clipping

Is the system working? NO 2. Consequences of the legal framework (II) Is the system working? NO Agreement RH – PCAs considered anticompetitive Not every press clipping agency has a license. CEDRO can not approach the “second” market yet. But we are establishing the basis for the approach. Right holders PCAs 8 8

Open interpretation of the law 3. SWOT analysis Strengths Weaknesses The right is established Open interpretation of the law CEDRO is acknowledged as a player in the market Dysfunctional market CEDRO has never been charged with a misdemeanor under the law Low level of remuneration for RH Art. 17 & 32 have yet to be monetized Amendments to the law CEDRO can provide a win-win solution for all parties RH eligibility for remuneration can yet be appealed to a higher court Develop a simple and secure system for RH and users RH risk averse to legal challenges Opportunities Threats

Legal system is not practical 4. Summary Legal system is not practical RH are not able to protect and monetize their rights RH are concerned that financial rewards will not compensate for the risk of future legal challenges CEDRO is working towards consolidating its position in the market. CEDRO could provide a win-win solution for all players 10 10

5. Conclusion Challenging situation - CEDRO should work the system for the benefit of every party and is in the position to do so 11 11

Thank you for your attention Find us: www.cedro.org blog.cedro.org twitter.com/cedroenlinea facebook.com/cedrocomunicacion C E N T R O S P A Ñ L D H G Á F I