use (up to about 50) and is not limited to parts of works. The Chinese point out that current photocopying costs make it impracticable to produce multiple copies of large works such as text books in this way but the had not considered the cumulative impact of classroom copying of works included in the national curriculum. They said they would consider making clear in regulations that this exception would not apply if it conflicted with the proviso in Berne Article 9(2). (I consider this to be a largely unworkable safeguard, but it may be better than nothing and we have had to accept it in the computer software directive.)
20.
The exception for use of works by State organisations (paragraph 7) was said to apply only to judicial and administrative proceedings. Again, regulations clarifying this were promised.
21. The "free performance" exception (paragraph 9) was said to apply only where the performance was live, given by performers who were not paid (whether by salary or fee) and performed before a non-paying audience. It was mainly intended to benefit traditional performances at festivals. Our request for clarification in regulations was sympathetically received.
Article 24
22. We asked what would happen if a contract omitted clauses set out in this article and were told that model clauses would be produced and would have effect if such basic provisions were omitted.
23. Assignment of rights does not appear possible under the present law (there appeared to be a difference of opinion on this between the NCAC and Professor Zheng who considered that in the absence of any express prohibition on assignment, Chinese Civil law principles would allow it). However assignment would be allowed were China to accede to Berne.
24.
It appears that moral rights can be waived.
Article 27
25. We questioned the effect of having State tariffs for the exploitation of works, and were told that they had three functions, (1) as a guideline for negotiations; (2) as the rate for statutory licences and (3 as a rate to be taken into consideration by the courts when settling disagreements between rights owners and users. I expressed the fear that since it would always be possible for users to disagree with the proposed terms, the copyright owner may in practice only have the choice between refusing to license his works or accepting the State-decided rate. The reply was non- committal, so this will also need watching. (The IFPI representative was however unperturbed, since he felt that there would be sufficient competition between Chinese
4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.