This submission confirms that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 (CDPA) needs
to be reviewed to comply with the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances 2012
(Beijing 2012) and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996 (WPPT 1996).
The submission also stresses that further evidence needs to be collected on the impact ...
This submission confirms that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 (CDPA) needs
to be reviewed to comply with the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances 2012
(Beijing 2012) and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996 (WPPT 1996).
The submission also stresses that further evidence needs to be collected on the impact of
the current UK framework of performers’ rights to ensure the implementation is based on
evidence-based policy.
Need for reform
The submission confirms that the CDPA should be modified to achieve 3 objectives:
(1) Ensure full compliance with Beijing 2012 and the WPPT 1996 (in relation to
performers’ economic, moral and equitable remuneration rights);
(2) Improve the language and internal coherence of the CPDA to remove
uncertainty in the interpretation and application of the Act (in relation to equitable
remuneration and other provisions);
(3) Guarantee the sustainability of the UK framework of performers’ rights in
wake of recent global challenges including but not limited to the use of performances
by Artificial Intelligence systems, online working, and new online contractual practices
for the hiring and use of performances.
There are gaps in the protection of performances conferred performers’ rights under Part 2
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 (CDPA). The gaps will need to be removed to
comply with Beijing 2012 (to be ratified) and WPPT 1996 (already ratified). Other aspects of
the CDPA are already compliant with Beijing 2012. This is because performers’ rights under
the CDPA already apply to all performances fixed in sound recordings or films (i.e. audiovisual
fixation), with only small variation of protection based on the medium of fixation. This point
is further explained below (Section 1.5).
Need for further evidence
The submission also stresses the lack of evidence on aspects critical to the sound
implementation Beijing Treaty 2002, including but not limited to:
(a) Data on the revenues generated by existing performers’ economic rights across as
a comprehensive range of performing practices;
(b) Data on the revenues generated by existing existing performers’ equitable
remuneration rights; and contrast these results with the revenues generated by
author’s equitable remuneration rights
(c) Data on the existing provision of collective representation for performers in the
UK, including representation for the purpose of collecting royalties; and assess whether
there is effective and comprehensive representation for UK performers.
The UK IPO should therefore undertake further research on these points to formulate evidence
based policies for the implementation of Beijing 2012.
