Bild von Arek Socha auf Pixabay

BGH on the scope of copyright information claims

Collecting societies can demand limited information about the use of copyrights. The BGH has now ruled on the scope.

Copyright protection is important to protect the creative work of artists and other creators and to ensure that they receive appropriate remuneration for their works. However, copyright owners are often not in a position to monitor the protection of their rights themselves, and it can be difficult for interested parties to identify the owner of the rights to use a work in order to conclude a license agreement.

What are collecting societies?

This is one of the reasons why collecting societies exist. Collecting societies are private associations that act in the interests of both copyright holders and bona fide users of works. They administer rights of use and consent as well as remuneration claims on behalf of several authors or holders of ancillary copyrights for joint exploitation. In this way, they can ensure that the rights of creators are protected and that interested parties can acquire the necessary rights simply and easily.

One question that may arise in connection with collecting societies is the scope of the information claims that these societies have against third parties. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dealt with this question in a decision dated 28.07.2022.

Lawsuit for copyright infringement

The ruling of the BGH was based on the following facts: The plaintiff, a publisher of newspapers, was a shareholder of Presse Monitor GmbH (PMG), a collecting society of German newspaper and magazine publishers. PMG markets the content and rights of over 700 newspaper and magazine publishers and operates a digital press database. The defendant is a service provider that offers media monitoring and analysis. It concluded a so-called “framework agreement” with PMG in 2004, which allows it to use the PMG database to create press reviews for PMG’s customers.

The plaintiff requested information from the defendant about the press reviews it had produced and the names of its customers. However, the defendant refused to provide this information. The plaintiff then brought an action in which it demanded that the defendant provide information about the press reviews it had produced and the names of its customers.

BGH decides: Scope of information claims of collecting societies

The BGH ruled that the plaintiff can demand information from the defendant as to how many press reviews the defendant has produced in total for each calendar year as part of the contractual agreements with PMG and its customers, and which press reviews it has produced for each customer. However, the defendant does not have to disclose the names of the customers.

Information on the number and type of press reviews, but not on customer names

This decision of the BGH shows that collecting societies do have the right to demand information from third parties about the use of copyrights, but that these information claims are limited. In this case, the BGH ruled that PMG can demand information from the defendant about the number and type of press reviews produced, but not the names of the customers who have purchased these press reviews. This decision gives copyright holders some control over the use of their works, but also protects the privacy of users.

Contact person

Free newsletter

Matching contributions

Search

Request