[
To Table of Contents]
4 Different Types of Licensing System
Edit1 Voluntary
In the UK rightsholders can choose whether to include their titles under the copying licences or not. On the other hand, users are obliged to take out licences where a scheme exists. However there is no legal compulsion for them to declare that they do actually copy copyright materials.
In the UK there is no remuneration for copying for private use. The CLA Takes the view that “fair dealing” means an exception to having to seek permission, but also to rewarding the rightsholders.
Different countries take different approaches to the issues of choice, the usability of the licence and private copying.
Edit2 Extended Collective Licence
The Nordic countries arrived at a solution called the “extended collective licence” ie. once a representative group of a certain category of NATIONAL rightsholders voluntarily approve a particular licence, the works of INTERNATIONAL rightsholders in the same category are automatically included, by act of law. This is the extension effect.
The users gain access to a comprehensive global repertoire by means of this extension.
A particular strength of the extended collective licence from the point of view of the national rightsholders is that the licences have legislative support.
Like the UK blanket licence, it’s an opt out licence. Rightsholders who do not wish to participate may opt out of an extended collective licence, presumably placing themselves in a similar position to opted-out rightsholders in the UK.
Edit3 Legal Licences
The right to copying is given by law, not by rightsholder consent, and is accompanied by the right to remuneration.
In a statutory or legal licensing regime, the royalty rate may be either directly set by law, or by negotiation. In the latter case it may be ratified by a statutory body of some sort. The licence may cover all sectors (as e.g. in Switzerland) or may be limited to a particular sector (e.g. education – Australia). They cover national and international works equally. There is no opting in or out of these licences. They are not voluntary in any way.
Equipment Levy
Levy schemes collect money for private copying. A small amount is added to the price of a copying machine, or to the price of a blank carrier medium such as CDs. This amount represents the royalty to be paid to the rightsholder for the use to be made of the equipment in copying copyright material.
Operator Levy
Charged in addition in some countries, based on the volume of copying measured over a year.
It’s fair to say that equipment manufacturers generally oppose levy systems, and press for their abolition at legislative level. Some large rightsholders have expressed concern about the suitability of levies for the longer-term digital future, but generally, rightsholders agree that the levy systems continue to serve a useful purpose, and they support them where they exist and where there is no better alternative.
Edit4 Mixed Systems
Private copying is legitimised and remunerated through a levy system – an equipment levy.
For copying other than that defined as private, the law takes the view that participation cannot be made compulsory either for rightsholders or for users. Copying of copyright materials within organisations is therefore subject to voluntary licensing.
In many ways, this system represents the best of both worlds, minimising the application of exceptions and legal compulsion, while offering the opportunity for legitimate use of oopyright material in all contexts, with appropriate control and remuneration.
In practice, all systems have their strengths and weaknesses and are only as effective as the law and enforcement mechanisms supporting them.
EditLack of title information - Foreign non-title specific fees
Because the licensing schemes vary so much, in many cases this means that when money is sent to the CLA from abroad, it is impossible to tell which titles have been copied. This is especially when money comes from levies, and the collecting organisations in those countries are not able to provide title information. There is more information on the way different countries manage their copyright law in this article on the IFFRA website:
Introduction to Reprography in Copyright Legislation
Non-title specific countries
Countries that cannot provide title information include Germany, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. For a list of the collecting societies in these and other countries, see the
Overseas Rights Organisations page.
Allocation of money
To calculate how to allocate this non-title specific revenue recevied from CLA, the PLS uses a calculation based, where possible, on the fees received from each UK sector in the 12 months prior to the date of the distribution so the amounts allocated to individual mandating publishers are based on the total fees received in those distributions.
this means you may find two separate invoices in your payment: one covering the non-title specific payments and the other for the payment that includes title information. These two invoices will need to be added together to reach the payment value.
EditBilateral Agreements
In many countries, the CLA has reciprocal agreements with the local collection societies to make sure money comes back to the UK, for British-published works that are being copied in those countries. You can see more details of those agreements on the
Bilateral Agreements page.