| Abstract [eng] |
Legal Protection of Audiovisual Performances The question of legal protection of audiovisual performances arisen when due to Rome Convention provisions performers, whose performance is fixed in audiovisual recording, compared with performers, whose performance is fixed in sound recording, were groundlessly singled out and left without any legal protection. This difference was taken over by subsequent international documents and maintained, regardless of the fact that none of them preclude extending the legal protection and provide it for audiovisual performers. WIPO members tried to solve this problem by agreeing to a similar treaty as WPPT for audiovisual performers, but they failed, because it was too hard to find a compromise between members that represent different legal systems. The main obstacle for an agreement was a presumption of transfer of rights. This issue has been solved only in 2012 by consolidating flexible provision in a new international treaty. Analyzing the new Beijing treaty there can be some doubts on selected instrument and its provisions. The adoption of a separate treaty that specifically regulates a legal protection of audiovisual performance further can reinforce the distinction between performers and their division into two different groups that may affect the interests of the same performers. For example, in Lithuania audiovisual performers are protected, but because of the distinction in certain rights context they are at a particularly disadvantaged position compared with the sound performers. At the time of the questionnaire it has been noticed that performers were in favor of unification of the rights, so at this point there is a question whether the form of international document shouldn’t have been a protocol that would supplement WPPT. In the analysis of the new provisions of the treaty it’s easy to notice that some of them are too flexible to ensure interests of audiovisual performers and solve existing problems, for example, in Lithuania. However, it should be emphasized that the treaty provides only for minimum requirements. |
