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 for the account 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.
An important question that arises in connection with collecting societies concerns the scope of information claims that these societies may have against third parties. In a decision dated 28.07.2022, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addressed the scope of such information claims by collecting societies and clarified the extent to which information can be requested from third parties when it comes to safeguarding the rights of authors and rights holders.
Action for copyright infringement and the right to information
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, so the plaintiff brought an action in which it demanded that the defendant provide comprehensive information about the press reviews it had produced and the names of its customers. This illustrates the importance and application of information claims in the enforcement of copyrights and other intellectual property rights.
BGH decides on the 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. This content of the BGH’s decision makes it clear that claims for information by collecting societies within the meaning of copyright law are comprehensive, but also have limits.
Information on the number and type of press reviews, but not on customer names
This decision of the BGH shows that collecting societies have the right to demand information from third parties about the use of copyrights. However, these rights to information are clearly limited. In the present case, the BGH ruled that PMG can only demand information from the defendant about the number and type of press reviews produced, but not about the names of the customers who have purchased these press reviews. This limitation of the right to information protects the privacy of customers and at the same time ensures that copyright holders retain a certain degree of control over the use of their works.
The scope of the right to information plays a central role when it comes to the control and enforcement of copyrights by collecting societies. The right to information is an indispensable instrument, particularly in cases where rights holders themselves have no way of fully monitoring the use of their works. At the same time, the legitimate interests of users and customers must be safeguarded, which leads to a careful balancing of the rights of authors and the protection of privacy. The decision of the BGH therefore has far-reaching significance for the practical application and enforcement of information claims in the area of copyright law.
