The protection of performances fixed in audiovisual recordings under UK law and the Beijing Treaty

This is the final version. Available from the Center for Science, Culture and the Law at Exeter via the DOI in this record. 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