| Introduction
Today, most continental
European countries have put in place a levy system to
compensate authors and publishers for 'reproductions on
paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any
kind of photographic technique or by some other process
having similar effects, with the exception of sheet
music'.[1] The twelve EU
Member States that have put in place such a levy system
are in chronological order since 1965: Germany (1965),
Sweden (1973), Netherlands (1977), Finland (1978), Denmark
(1980/educational and 1987/business), France (1988), Spain
(1988), Italy (1993), Belgium (1994), Austria (1996),
Greece (1996), and Portugal (1998).[2]
Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom have
implemented no levy system to compensate copyright holders
for reprographic activities.
This study, conducted for
and financed by the Ministry of Justice of the
Netherlands, purports to examine the reprography systems
that are currently in force in the countries of the
European Union, for the purpose of finding out how the
Dutch regime compares in price with those of other
countries. To this end, we present in the following
section a brief overview of the regimes in place in each
of the thirteen Member States where money is collected
with respect to reprographic activities. In view of the
very short time and of the limited resources available for
the completion of this study, we have conducted only a
summary review of the prices established under each
national regime without going into any detail concerning
their respective workings. On the basis of these findings,
we will draw some conclusions in section 3. Note that, for
ease of consultation, the data collected below is
presented in the form of comparative tables in Annex to
this document.
Conclusion
If this brief overview of
the reprography tariffs in force in the countries of the
European Union demonstrates one thing, it is that the
tariffs in force in one Member State are hardly comparable
with those of another. It is very difficult indeed to draw
a definite conclusion as to how the Dutch reprography
regime compares in price with those of other European
countries for a number of reasons. First, the actual basis
for the payment of remuneration for reprographic
activities varies significantly from one EU Member State
to another. Countries impose levies following either one
of four ways: 1) on the sale of reproduction equipment,
such as photocopy machines, and facsimile machines; 2)
proportional to the amount of copies realised in a year;
3) proportional to the number of students or employees; or
4) a combination of either one of the three preceding
systems. Second, the mode of calculation of levies imposed
on reproduction equipment differs significantly from one
country to another. In some countries, the remuneration on
equipment is calculated in proportion to the sales price
of such equipment, while in other countries, the
remuneration on equipment is paid in the form of a lump
sum. In other countries, where remuneration is calculated
in proportion to the amount of copies made in a year, the
price per copy may vary according to the type of work
reproduced (i.e. scientific or educational book, novels,
magazines, or newspapers), and to the type of equipment
used or to the quality of the reproductions. When
determining the price per copy, most countries and
collecting societies also make a distinction according to
the sector of activity, i.e. the private sector, the
public sector, and the educational sector.
More specifically, the
Dutch reprography regime cannot be directly compared to
the regimes of the eight following Member States:
- Greece because
there is only an 'appliance tariff' in force;
- Austria, Belgium,
Germany, Portugal and Spain, because
there is both an 'appliance tariff' and a 'user
tariff' in force;
- United Kingdom
and Sweden, because the fee is calculated
exclusively in proportion to the number of
employees/students present in the business/institution
instead of being calculated in proportion to the
amount of pages copied in a year.
To some extent, the Dutch
reprography regime could be compared with those of the
four Member States: Denmark, Finland,
France, and Italy.
- Denmark: only
the price per page for businesses and public sector,
which is approximately of 0,096, can be compared
to the Dutch price of 0,045 per page copied; the
levy applicable in Denmark for the educational sector
cannot be compared with the Dutch system, because it
is calculated exclusively in proportion to the number
of students present in the institution instead of
being calculated in proportion to the amount of pages
copied in a year.
- Finland: the
price per page for businesses and public sector is
0,037, which appears to be lower than the price of
0,045 per page copied in the Netherlands; Finnish
primary and secondary schools pay a price of
0,0296 per page copied, where Dutch schools only pay
0,011 per page copied. On the other hand, Finnish
universities pay a price of 0,0296 per page
copied, which appears lower than the fee that Dutch
universities have to pay which ranges between
0,025 and 0,07 per page depending of the type of
work copied and on the type of institution concerned.
- France: the
price per page for businesses varies from 0,0305
to 0,7622 depending on the category of work
copied, which on average appears to be higher than the
price of 0,045 per page copied in the Netherlands
(since only general public press and pocket books are
priced lower than 0,045). For newspaper cuttings
and use of works in documentation centers, the average
price asked is 0,0229 and thus appears to be lower
than the price of 0,045 per page copied in the
Netherlands (if applicable in these situations). The
levy applicable in France for the educational sector
cannot be compared with the Dutch system, because it
is calculated exclusively in proportion to the number
of students enrolled in the institution instead of
being calculated in proportion to the amount of pages
copied in a year.
- Italy: the
price per page of 0,06 or 0,05 (which depends
on whether the user co-operates with the collecting
society) only applies to copy-shops and reproduction
centres, whereas the price of 0,045 per page
copied in the Netherlands applies to all private and
public sector entities. Contrary to the Netherlands
where schools pay 0,011 per page copied, there is
currently in Italy no levy system for schools.
Universities in Italy pay a fee of 1,81 per
student per year, while Dutch universities pay a levy
ranging between 0,025 and 0,04 per page
depending on the type of work and institution
concerned.
However, in comparing the
regimes of these four Member States with the Dutch regime,
one must also take into consideration the type of
activities that each system covers and the restrictions
that are attached thereto. Indeed, not all regimes cover
the same types of activities. In France for example, a
special agreement has been concluded for the making of
newspaper cuttings and for the use of protected works in
documentation centers, for which the collecting society
Reprorecht does not, to our knowledge, have a separate
tariff. The maximum amount of pages that schools are
allowed to make varies in France between 100 and 180 pages
per student per year depending on the type of school
concerned, whereas the limit allowed by the Dutch
collecting society PRO is calculated on the basis of the
'amount of words' taken from each work. Contrary to the
situation currently prevailing in the Netherlands, schools
in Italy are not currently subject to a levy system for
the reproductions made by means of reprography. Moreover,
except for 'copy shops', 'reproduction centres' and
libraries of public authorities (central, regional and
local), there is currently no system for the collection of
remuneration for photocopies made for internal purposes by
private enterprises and public institutions in Italy.
Of all regimes currently
in force in the European Union, the Finnish reprography
regime is perhaps the only system with which the Dutch
system may be directly compared. There, the price per page
copied asked from the private and public sector is
0,037, which appears to be lower than the Dutch price of
0,045. Finnish primary and secondary schools pay a
price of 0,0296 per page copied, where Dutch schools
only pay 0,011 per page copied. On the other hand,
Finnish universities pay a price of 0,0296 per page
copied, which appears lower than the fee that Dutch
universities have to pay which ranges between 0,025
and 0,07 per page depending on the type of work copied
and on the type of institution concerned.
Another factor to take
into consideration when comparing the reprography regimes
of different countries is the extent to which the
competent collective society in each country actually
enforces the tariffs in the different sectors of activity.
Although no information was collected on this point, one
can reasonably presume that not all collecting societies
across the European Union will deploy the same level of
energy and resources in monitoring the amount of copies
made annually by every entity subject to the payment of
remuneration or in the collection of the sums due.
Consequently, it might be less costly for users to be
subject to an expensive tariff that is poorly enforced
than to be subject to a cheap tariff that is very strictly
enforced. Finally, the costs involved for each user with
respect to the administration of the reprography regime
must also be taken into account. Although no information
was collected on this point, one can easily imagine that
an importer or manufacturer of reprographic equipment can
more easily keep track of the number of appliances put on
the market in order to pay the 'appliance tariff', than a
library, school, copy-shop, business or governmental
office can keep track of the amount of copies made from
copyright protected works in order to pay a remuneration
calculated in proportion to the amount of pages copied
annually.
For all the reasons
mentioned above and given the limited time and resources
available for the completion of this study, it is
impossible for us to conclude whether the Dutch
reprography regime is more or less expensive than the ones
of other European Member States. |
