Kopiosto is a Finnish collective management organization which manages and grants exploitation licenses on behalf of a large number of authors on the basis of authorizations granted to it by those authors. Kopiosto has also been approved by the Ministry of Education and Culture as an organization entrusted with the granting of contractual exploitation licenses for the purpose, inter alia, of retransmitting works included in radio or television broadcasts. Telia operates a cable television network which transmits for public reception the television signal of national free-to-air television stations.
In 2018 Kopiosto brought an action before the Finnish Court of Economic Affairs seeking a declaration that Telia had retransmitted television broadcasts, and that, in the absence of a license previously granted by Kopiosto, that retransmission constituted a copyright infringement of the authors represented by that body, primarily as the body entrusted with the granting of contractual licenses and, in the alternative, on the basis of the authorizations granted to it by the copyright holders.
Telia argued that Kopiosto did not have standing to bring an action for copyright infringement.
In a 2019 decision, the Finnish Court of Economic Affairs dismissed Kopiosto’s claims based on copyright infringement, on the grounds that Kopiosto was not entitled to bring an action in its own name for infringement of those rights on behalf of the rightholders it represents as an organization authorized to grant contractual exploitation licenses. That court held that Kopiosto was not entitled to bring an action for copyright infringement of those rightholders who had authorized that body to manage their rights and to represent them before the courts.
Kopiosto brought the judgment before the Supreme Court of Finland, which, in order to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings and in the absence of a provision of national law to that effect, decided to refer the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:
1) Is it to be understood, in relation to collective management organizations, that the general capacity to be a party to legal proceedings provided for in national law is sufficient in itself to recognize the right of those organizations to be parties to proceedings in defense of those rights, which is a condition of active legal capacity under Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48, or must the existence of active legal capacity be subject to an expressly recognized right to bring proceedings in their own name under national law?
2) In the context of the interpretation of Article 4(cʹ) of Directive 2004/48, must the phrase “a direct interest in defending the copyright of the rightholders represented by him” be interpreted in a uniform manner in all Member States?
(3) If it is accepted that the collecting society has a direct interest and is actively entitled to bring legal proceedings in its own name: What significance is attached to the fact that, in the assessment of active entitlement, possibly in the light of Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the collecting society represents even authors who have not authorized it to manage their copyrights and that there is no statutory provision concerning the right of the collecting society to bring legal proceedings in its own name?
The judgment of the CJEU reads as follows:
1) Article 4(cʹ) of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is to be interpreted as meaning that:
in addition to the requirement of a direct interest in the protection of the rights concerned, recognition of the right of collective management organizations to seek in their own name the application of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in Chapter II of the Directive presupposes that those organizations are actively entitled to pursue legal remedies for the purpose of protecting intellectual property rights, an entitlement which may derive from a specific provision to that effect.
2) Article 4(cʹ) of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that:
at the present stage in the development of European Union law, Member States are not required to recognize that collective management organizations which have been duly recognized as having the right to represent intellectual property right holders have a direct interest in seeking, in their own name, the application of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in Chapter II of the Directive where the existence of a direct interest of those societies in the protection of their intellectual property rights has been established by the Member States.
See the full judgment here.