From: Ariadna Matas Casadevall <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:34:02 +0000

[apologies for cross-posting]

Licensing as a solution to rights management? IFLA publishes extended
collective licensing background paper

Contributors: Karolina Andersdotter, Jean Dryden, Shen Xiaojian, Zhang
Ruobing, Liu Yuchu and Hao Jinmin, Sylvie Nérisson, Armin Talke, Benjamin
White, Janice Pilch, Kristine Abelsnes and Inga-Lill Nilsson.

*Access the full report
<https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/ecl_background_paper.pdf> in pdf.*

Libraries have a mission to maximize access to their collections, for
culture, education and research. In doing so, they face challenges around
clearing rights – i.e. how to make these books, articles, photos or other
material available to the public without infringing copyright.


Mass digitisation projects have brought this issue into focus, but it has
long been a challenge, for example for universities or schools.


One emerging solution, at least in cases where copyright exceptions and
limitations do not apply, is extended collective licensing. For many
libraries around the world, this is a reality. But is it efficient or
effective? Are there limits to what it offers, and what are the
disadvantages? Are other countries ready for such a system?


Under extended collective licensing systems, *collective management
organisations* are entitled to represent rightholders who are not their
members. They can therefore issue licences and collect fees for use of
their works and should then distribute royalties back to the original
rightholder, minus administration costs.


For libraries, this offers an *alternative to the complexity* of trying to
find owners for each individual work in a large collection. Especially in
the case of orphan works or out of commerce works, this is particularly
difficult. It is also relevant to archives, and to higher educational
institutions, where mass use of educational material, often by students
directly, is sometimes managed through such licenses.

However, as a license-based system, much depends on whether libraries can
acquire the licences they need for their users, at a reasonable cost. Also,
in *contrast to unremunerated exceptions and limitations* to copyright,
extended collective licensing is more bureaucratic given the need to
identify collecting societies and negotiate a deal. Authors and other
creators who are not members of collecting societies may also have
concerns.


As this solution for rights management seems to be gaining popularity, it
is worth *being aware of both its positive side and its limitations*, and
to draw on current experiences to inform further discussions.

*The IFLA background paper on extended collective licensing *presents
examples of such systems under several jurisdictions. Reports from Canada,
China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Norway and
Sweden provide an overview the circumstances that appear to be needed for
extended collective licensing to be an efficient solution.


It also identifies some suggested *conclusions *about the conditions
required for extended collective licensing to be a realistic option. The
paper should provide a useful advocacy tool in discussions around extended
collective licensing.



[share on twitter <https://twitter.com/IFLA/status/1026799260543541248>]



[image: cid:image001.png@01D2E5C1.FA94F2C0]

*Ariadna Matas*

IFLA Policy and Research Officer

[log in to unmask]

+31(0)703140670

Skype: ariadna.matas

Twitter: @ariamatas <https://twitter.com/ariamatas?lang=ca>

www.ifla.org