In Case 341/87 EMI Electrola v Patricia [1989] ECR 79, [1989] 2 CMLR 544 the court applied a similar logic to sound recordings. The term of protection for sound recordings (unharmonised at that time under EC law) was 50 years in Germany but only 25 in Denmark. A Danish CD manufacturer made commercial recordings of old Cliff Richard records, which were out of protection in Denmark, and sold them in Germany, where they were not. He prayed in aid the Treaty of Rome as a defence against copyright infringement but the court did not accept this defence. German law was perfectly entitled to protect such works for longer than Danish law did.

doi:10.4324/9781843142928-27

Chapter

In Case 341/87 EMI Electrola v Patricia [1989] ECR 79, [1989] 2 CMLR 544 the court applied a similar logic to sound recordings. The term of protection for sound recordings (unharmonised at that time under EC law) was 50 years in Germany but only 25 in Denmark. A Danish CD manufacturer made commercial recordings of old Cliff Richard records, which were out of protection in Denmark, and sold them in Germany, where they were not. He prayed in aid the Treaty of Rome as a defence against copyright infringement but the court did not accept this defence. German law was perfectly entitled to protect such works for longer than Danish law did.

Chapter

In Case 341/87 EMI Electrola v Patricia [1989] ECR 79, [1989] 2 CMLR 544 the court applied a similar logic to sound recordings. The term of protection for sound recordings (unharmonised at that time under EC law) was 50 years in Germany but only 25 in Denmark. A Danish CD manufacturer made commercial recordings of old Cliff Richard records, which were out of protection in Denmark, and sold them in Germany, where they were not. He prayed in aid the Treaty of Rome as a defence against copyright infringement but the court did not accept this defence. German law was perfectly entitled to protect such works for longer than Danish law did.

ABSTRACT

Sections 96(1) and 125(1) of the German Copyright Act of 9 September 1965 (Urheberrechtsgesetz, ‘UrhG’) grant a performing artist of German nationality the protection accorded by ss 73-84 of the Act for all his performances, particularly the right to prohibit the distribution of performances by him which are reproduced without his authorisation, irrespective of the place of performance. On the other hand, it follows from s 125(2)–(6) UrhG, relating to foreign artists and as interpreted by the Federal Supreme Court, that foreign artists cannot rely on the above-mentioned provisions of s 96(1) if the performance was given outside Germany.