The Battle between Soundreef and SIAE Rages on.

With a measure of the last May 27 the Court of Milan suspendedthe execution promoted by SIAE against a Soundreef’s client company guilty, according to SIAE itself, for having paid royalties for the spread of environment music to the english collecting society.

Soundreef participated in the proceeding to support its client’s reason, arguing the legitimacy of intermediation carried out in Italy for rights to spread music within a commercial operation, while, according to SIAE, the english collecting society did not have any proxy for the mediation of such rights.

With the measure, the Judge – on the basis of case files – considered, for the time being, founded the Soundreef’s thesis and therefore rejected the SIAE’s appeal pending the decision of trial judgment.

According to the Court of Milan, SIAE did not, in fact, prove to have any proxy to mediate the copyrights on works used by the mentioned commercial operation and, in any case, did not have any right to charge penalties also requested to the user.

It should be understood the Soundreef’s future after the recent outcome of referendum on Great Britain’s exit from the European Union. Once the exit process from the European Union will be completed, Soundreef can no longer rely on the direct application of Barnier directive (EU 2014/26).

How to Revive a Vintage Trademark.

A recent trend has emerged wherein startups, with little or no relation to nostalgia brands from the past, will obtain the rights to bring a gone-but-not-forgotten product back to the market. From fashion to watches to candy, many new companies have taken dead or expired trademarks and given them new life. In fact, marketplaces have emerged where new businesses can purchase an old brand, but it isn’t usually necessary to buy a brand that’s no longer in use. 

Former couture label Paul Poiret was recently put up for sale by former owner Luvanis SA after being dormant for 80 years. 

Reviving a well-known brand can save millions of dollars in upfront marketing costs that can be used in other areas of the business. And, Marks contends, name recognition makes it easier to capture attention in a crowded marketplace, especially if customers remember the brand fondly.

The first step to reviving an old brand is finding out who owns the rights to the trademark, determining whether or not it’s still in use, and determining what you will need to do to obtain rights to the mark. Initially, you will want to conduct a trademark search in order to determine whether or not the trademark is available. You can hire a lawyer to conduct this process for you.

Trademark rights arise out of using the mark in commerce, and if a mark isn’t used, then the rights to use the mark becomes free. Generally, a trademark needs to have been used within the last five years in order to stay protected. If the mark has been abandoned, then it becomes available to others.

It’s up to you to obtain the trademark registration and use the mark in commerce in order to protect your rights to your new old brand. Consider buying the domain name for the product and forming a corporate entity for your new business.

If the trademark has been used recently, or the mark is still active on the registration, you may consider contacting the owner of the mark to inquire about its availability and offer to purchase it along with whatever other intellectual property you may need to bring your product back to life.

The Use of the Patronymic after a brand is sold. The Fiorucci case.

Recently the Italian Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling on the use of a patronymic as a trade mark. As known such use  can have important consequences the design and fashion industry. Many brands in this  industry are identified with the founder's name and about just remember brands like Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, Valentino and in the latter case has seen the fashion house founder quit the capital at the end of the 90 .
However it has often happened that the use of the patronymic by the founder of the company after the sale of his brand was considered lawful by the Italian Courts as it was considered used in a purely descriptive manner of the designer and not distinctively.
Therefore, after the sale of the Fiorucci brand occurred in 1900 by Elio Fiorucci to the Japanese company Edwin International Group it seemed not disputed that the creation of a new brand called Love Therapy by Elio Fiorucci was lawful as the reference to Mr. Fiorucci’s name .
With this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of the Patronymic by the founder, after the sale of the original trademark would create an entanglement interfering  with the use of the famous original trademark  sold.
It remains to understand how we can talk about slavish imitation when the launch of the project “Love Therapy by Elio Fiorucci's” occurred  over 13 years after the sale of the original Fiorucci Brand to Edwin International Group. 

International Legal Challenges Facing the Fashion Industry. Milan. June 8, 2016

We are pleased to inform you that Tsclex and the US law firm Kramer Levin & Naftalis (www.kramerlevin.com), together with the patronage of Camera Italiana Buyer Moda, will hold a fashion seminar in Milan dedicated to international legal challenges that the Fashion Industry is currently facing, in particular concerning intellectual property rights.

The seminar will be composed of two panels. The first dedicated to management and protection of trademark portfolios while the second to cross border M&A transactions in the fashion industry. 

The meeting will take place in the afternoon of June 8th at I Chiostri dell’Umanitaria, located behind the Court, in a convent of the XV century, and not far from Piazza Duomo.

Ravel's Bolero Falls in Public Domain.

On May 1, 2016 one of the most performed musical works to the world, the Bolero by Maurice Ravel, has fallen into the public domain almost one hundred years after its first performance in Paris. Composed in 1928 and performed for the first time on November 22 of that year at the Opera Garnier, the work was commissioned by Russian ballerina Ida Rubinstein, a friend and patron of Ravel.

 In almost 90 years the work was performed by the most prestigious orchestras in the world, under the direction of the greatest conductors, Toscanini, Abbado and Boulez. The Bolero has also inspired many choreographies, the most famous of which is probably that of Maurice Béjart represented in 1961.

Until 1994, the Bolero remained in first place in the world rankings of the copyright and it is estimated that between 1960 and today it has generated more than 50 million Euros of royalties.

The work's notoriety has caused, after the death of Ravel’s brother, Edouard in 1960, a long dispute between the supposed heirs, Edouard’s masseuse Jeanne Taverne, his driver and factotum, Alexander, the nephews of the composer and a director of SACEM, the French collecting society.

The Italian Patent Box. An opportunity for the exploitation of IP assets.

In December 2015, the Italian Government introduced the optional tax regime of the "Patent Box" which consists in an income fiscal relief for corporate revenues generated from intellectual property rights. 
In particular, the Patent Box tax regime applies to all forms of business entities like corporations; partnerships; individual entrepreneurs; stable organizations residing in white list countries.

The tax relief applies to all income derived from the exploitation of:
•    Patents;
•    Trademarks;
•    Designs and models;
•    Know How;
•    Software.

The peculiarity of the Italian Patent Box is that it extends the tax benefits  to all intangibles and therefore also to know-how and software but it does not apply  to nonprofit companies, professional associations and companies subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

The Patent Box will apply from the tax year following the year December 31, 2014 and to obtain the relief taxpayers must enter into an Advanced Pricing Agreement (APA) with the Italian Revenue Agency.

In the first two years (2015 and 2016) the exemption is 30% and 40% of the relevant income; thereafter it is se to 50%. Thus, from 2017 if all the expenditure underlying the resulting intangible qualifies under the nexus approach, the effective tax rate for the related income will be reduced to 15.7% instead of the standard 31.4%.

Our firm is able to assist companies and tax advisors in order to obtain the Patent Box tax benefits in drafting legal opinions on the value of assets subject to IP Patent Box, assessing the client’s IP portfolio and  the registration of trademarks, software and assessing a companies’ know-how in order to identify their intangibles portfolio.

adidas, the brand with 3 (or 2) stripes...

Recently the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in favour of adidas in its opposition to an application for registration of a Community trade mark brought by Shoe Branding Europe.
Shoe Branding Europe registered a trademark with two stripes and the filing was opposed by the famous German shoe manufacturer. 
Initially the opposition was dismissed by OHIM’s Opposition Division and by the Board of Appeal, both of which held that adidias’ three-stripe mark could enjoy protection only against identical or virtually identical reproductions and that, in the instant case, there were sufficient differences to dispel any likelihood of confusion (notably the number of stripes, the sloping and the positioning). adidas successfully appealed to the General Court, which found that the Board was wrong to say the marks were dissimilar and that, further, given that adidas had shown reputation in the three parallel stripes, this was sufficient to support both a finding of a likelihood of confusion and trade mark infringement.
Shoe Branding appealed to the CJEU, which wholly endorsed the General Court’s reasoning, finding that the differences between the two marks were of a minor nature and “that the difference between two and three stripes placed on a shoe was not sufficient to affect the similarities arising from the configuration of the signs at issue and from their position on the side of the shoe”. The CJEU held that minor differences between the marks at issue would not be noticed by a consumer having an average level of attention and would not influence the overall impression produced by the marks on account of the presence of wide sloping stripes on the side of the shoe.

The Italian IP court on the Protection of Unregistered Fabric Designs.

At the end of February the Milan IP Court  rendered an interesting order on the protection of unregistered design protection with respect to fabric design.
The law suit was commenced by an historic Italian cotton mill specialized in the production of high-end shirt fabrics and it was brought against another Italian competitor  accused of infringing 54 original fabric prototypes created by the plaintiff. 
The Court found that  plaintiff’s unregistered designs were indeed granted protection under EC Regulation no. 6/2002 while on the other hand the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence of lack of novelty and individual character of the designs in question.
It is useful to recall that an Unregistered Community Design (UCD) is granted a per se protection if the design is Novel and if it possesses an individual character. For a UCD to be Novel, it must differ from prior designs by more than immaterial details. For a UCD to possess individual character, it must produce a different overall impression on the informed user from prior designs. In many cases, the informed user is likely to be the end user of the product. In fields where the designer has less design freedom, the difference between protectable designs and prior designs will not be as great as where the designer had complete design freedom. This is also reflected in the infringement rights arising from the UCD.
In addition, the Court also decided that the defendant’s conduct also infringed the Italian unfair competition rules under the Italian Civil Code as the copy of the models resulted in the misappropriation of the claimant’s research and development investments in order to enter the market at a reduced cost. 

The Court of Naples on a Burger Trademark.

Naples may well be the capital of pizza, but recently the IP Court of the famous Italian city judged on the distinctiveness  of the word “Ham” for identifying an Italian Hamburger franchise. 
The applicant, owner of the trademark “HAM HOLY BURGER” and of the corresponding domain name and website learned that a competitor (Ham S.r.l.) had started selling quality meat under the (figurative) trademark “HAM”, through the website “ham-burger.it”.
Ham Srl argued that its project preceded  the applicant’s trademark application  and stated that the “HAM HOLY BURGER” trademark was descriptive and thus weak and, in any case, that there was no likelihood of confusion between the signs. 
In the Court’s view the word “ham” is generally known by the large Italian public – even to that part of the population the part that is not familiar with the English language – as it is the first part of the word “hamburger”, a term commonly used in the Italian language to indicate a patty of pressed beef. The term “ham”, in other words, would not so much evoke a cut of hog meat (for those who know English), but rather, hamburgers, for most consumers. Therefore, in a trademark such as “HAM HOLY BURGER”, cannot not be granted any exclusive protection. Consequently there is also no risk of confusion between the signs of the two competitors.

Coke's New Bottle is not distinctive enough to be registered as a Trademark.

Eu Judges have recently stated that Coca-Cola new version of the iconic bottle curvaceous design is not distinctive enough.The world’s biggest soft-drink company sought to convince the EU General Court in Luxembourg that consumers would see it as a “natural evolution” of the earlier shape loved by designers and artists from Andy Warhol to Salvador Dali.

But the court ruled on Wednesday that the shape is “a bottle like the majority of bottles on the market.” It’s a “mere variant of the shape and packaging” of such products “which will not enable the average consumer to distinguish” this shape from others. Shape trademarks aren’t easy to get. The EU courts in past cases have set clear rules that for a shape to get intellectual property protection, owners must prove that consumers can recognize the product exclusively by that characteristic, and not in combination with a logo or another sign. Coca-Cola has been trying since 2011 to get an EU trademark for the bottle shape, whether made out of glass, metal or plastic. The trademark office based in Alicante, Spain, in 2014 decided the shape lacked any “distinctive character.”

Avoiding Notary Fees when Incorporating an Innovative Start Up.

On February 19, the Minister of Economic Development signed a decree, which introduces the possibility of certain types of companies without the aid of a Notary.  
The decree, which constitutes an important new element to encourage the creation of innovative start-ups, refers to those companies as defined by art 25 of Decree 179/2012, the so-called Growth 2.0 Decree.
This innovation shall mean that the articles of association and the deed of incorporation  may be written directly by members of the startup and the Company Registrar of Companies will authenticate the signatures and will proceed to a real time registration of the company.
The measure therefore allow for the establishment startup process is much more simple and convenient: the company may in fact be formed immediately eliminating the costs of preparing for notary public act.
According to Italian law innovative start-ups are limited liability companies, sometimes even in the form of cooperatives and non-listed companies, which:
-    Have carried out business activities for no longer that the last five years;
-    Are established in Italy or in a European Union Member State with a production office or a branch in Italy;
-    Sales do not exceed 5 million euros;
-    They do not distribute and have not distributed profits;
-    Develop, produce and market innovative products or services with high technological value.
Innovative start-ups must moreover possess the following additional requirements:
i)    Invest in research and development profits for at least 15 percent;
ii)    At least two-thirds of the workforce is made up of employees with research doctoral degree or who are doing a PhD at Italian or foreign university, or have a master's degree;
iii)    Are holders or licensees of at least one IP asset related to an industrial, biotechnological invention, to a topography of semiconductor product, a new plant variety or are holders of the rights to a computer program for the original, provided that such deprivation adhere directly to the corporate purpose and activity of enterprise.

Emoticons and Emojis... can they be protected?

An emoticon etymologically a portmanteau of emotion and icon, is a metacommunicative pictorial representation of a facial expression that, in the absence of body language and prosody, serves to draw a receiver's attention to the tenor or temper of a sender's nominal non-verbal communication, changing and improving its usually distinguished as a 3-5 character piece — usually by means of punctuation marks (though it can include numbers and letters) — a person's feelings or mood, though as emoticons have become more popular, some devices have provided stylized pictures that do not use punctuation.

In Western countries, emoticons are usually written at a right angle to the direction of the text. Users from Japan popularized a kind of emoticons called kaomoji (顔文字, often confused with emoji in the West) that can be understood without tilting one's head to the left. This style arose on ASCII NET of Japan in 1986.

A few years ago, Gap Inc. and Diane Von Furstenberg’s company DVF Studio asked the federal court in the Southern District of New York to rule on whether the heart emoticon <3 can be protected as a trademark. Their declaratory judgment complaint filed against VeryMeri Creative Media Inc. contended that VeryMeri could not claim intellectual property rights in its stylized heart logo, which consists of or incorporates the <3 emoticon, since that logo/emoticon is “widely used in connection with apparel and related products,” since the stylized heart logo “is nothing more than a commonly used and well-known ‘emoticon’ or metacommunicative pictorial representation of a heart design,” and because “no one entity can be said to have the exclusive right over all forms of this [emoticon heart] design.”

The debate over the protection of emoticons and emojis is still puzzling jurists in many different countries.

The question is raised as to whether commonly used words or designs or other stylistic elements can ever function as trademarks. Generally speaking, the answer to this question is almost always a resounding “yes.” If a word, design, or other stylistic element is being used properly as a trademark on a product or as a service mark to advertise and provide a service, and does not violate any of the restrictions imposed by the trademark law, it can function as a trademark and be registered.

As far as emoticons are concerned, the US Trademark Office has, in fact, allowed registration of emoticons as trademarks. The emoticons ; ) , :o) , : ) , *-)- , and : – (  have all been registered as trademarks by different entities for use on and for various goods and services including alcoholic beverages, clothing, online retail store services, cellular telephones, communication services, hardware and software, greeting cards, posters, art prints, calendars, postcards, and note cards. Thus, it seems in principle that an emoticon per se is capable of functioning as a trademark. 

Another question arises on the protection of emojis and emoticons under copyright law. In principle, any creative content that is fixed in some expressive format will be covered under copyright protection.

Readers may have noticed that the emojis found on Apple products are not the same as you find on others like the Blackberry, for example. 

We believe that the simple, yellow, face-type emoticons used by Apple [and many others] are copyrightable. The online Copyright Office database of registered copyrights has no record that Apple has registered any such emoticons [which would be unusual for Apple’s legal department]. It likely hasn’t because, for one reason, the Copyright Office position is that: “Well-known and commonly used symbols that contain a de minimis amount of expression or that are in the public domain, such as the peace symbol, gender symbols , the symbols for “play, pause, stop, forward, back,” simple emoticons such as the typical smiley face, or the “like” are NOT copyrightable

 So while we would agree that perhaps some of the most general ones MAYBE are too standard to claim copyright protection (e.g. a standard smiley face with yellow background and black dot eyes and black penciled smile) most other emoticons will certainly be protected and they could not be used as wished without seeking a license. 

Buddha "barred"

The Italian Supreme Court has recently ruled on the validity of the Buddha Bar trademark and the outcome is that Buddha's name cannot be used by anyone on an exclusive basis to "denote a product or service".

The Supreme Court, dismissed the appeal proposed by the companies George V Entertainment and George V Records which run the well-known bar in Paris and which wanted to prevent the Buddha-café in Milan, ran by an Italian entrepreneur, to be called so.

Plaintiffs arguments on the other hand were that the association between the words “Buddha” and “Bar” created a highly distinctive trademark asthe concepts conveyed by the two words were quite distant and therefore it created a string trademark.

The Supreme Court in the end held that if the trademark was valid, it could end up offending the religious feelings of Buddhists who would see a spiritual leader reduced to distinctive logo of a café-restaurant and for this reason it confirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Milan.

Cristal vs Critallino. Another champagne battle...

Cristal is a well-known brand in the luxury champagne market, and around half a million bottles are produced every year (compared with around 7.5 million bottles of Dom Pérignon), and in some years no bottles at all if the harvest is not of a sufficiently high standard.

Louis Roederer , the manufacturer of Cristal, sued the manufacturer of Cristalino back in 2010, claiming that consumers would be confused into thinking that Cristalino was in some way connected with Cristal, but also - due to the reputation of the Cristal brand - that the Cristalino product took unfair advantage of, and was detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of Cristal.

The history and repute of Cristal are undoubted.  Cristal was first created in 1876 for Alexander II of Russia, and is viewed by many as the first prestige cuvée. As the political situation in Russia at the time of his rule was unstable, the Tsar feared assassination. He ordered that champagne bottles for his Three Emperors Dinner be made clear, so that he could see the bubbles and also to prevent hiding a bomb within them, as could happen with a typical dark green bottle. Louis Roederer commissioned a Flemish glassmaker to create a clear lead glass Champagne bottle with a flat bottom. The Champagne has since become known as "Cristal"

Overall, and apart from the judge was impressed by the volume of press coverage generated by the Cristal brand, given the tiny proportion of the UK champagne market it occupied.

The High Court of Justice Chancery Division Intellectual Property held that use of the Cristalino mark would result in dilution and detriment to the distinctiveness of the Cristal brand, particularly when used in relation to cheap cava. The later brand would also be free-riding on the reputation of Cristal: evidence from several sources, including social media sites, showed consumers drinking Cristalino and jokingly pretending that it was Cristal, thereby benefitting Cristalino by associating it with the more prestigious product.

France Passes the "Photoshop Law"

As confirmed by an article by Reuters, France will now ban runways that feature super skinny supermodels. To be exact, the French Parliament wants agencies to stop hiring models which are considered “anorexic” and/or “not healthy” based on BMI standards.

Under this new law, it is now illegal in France to hire models whose BMI, or Body Mass Index is below 18. Violators would pay fines of up to €75,000 or US$82,000 — and face up to six months inside prison cell. Ouch.

In case you’re wondering, BMI or Body Mass Index is your weight in kilograms over your height, squared. For example, if the model’s height is 6 foot flat, and her weight is 127 pounds, her BMI is around 17 plus. Based on the official BMI categories, a BMI of 17 is considered underweight. The normal weight according to the feds is from 18.5 to 24.9.

The United States Department of Health & Human Services offers a BMI calculator on its website ( in case you’re planning to become a supermodel in France).

This new law is a part of the government’s action against glorifying extreme weight loss and becoming thin for the sake of “fashion.”

In addition to banning thin supermodels on catwalk, French lawmakers also passed a measure making untagged photoshopping illegal. What this means is that websites and magazines cannot just re-touch photographs of model to make them look thin on other media. These publications need to mark these images with a disclaimer that images “were manipulated.”

This measure also bans glorification of extreme weight loss, whether on websites, or people running events, etc. If found guilty, a person promoting “prolonged dietary restrictions” would pay a fine of around €10,000, and face a year in prison.

France is not the first to regulate the fashion industry. Two years ago, Israel had passed a similar law which aims to prevent fashion models from losing too much weight for the sake of “pleasing” the producers and owners of clothing lines. Israel was also the first country to pass the “photoshop law” which requires photoshopping of images to include a note to confirm alterations.

The Court of Milan decides on the Protection of Interior Design.

Italian beauty powerhouse Kiko Milano has won its legal battle against competitor Wjcon to defend the concept of its stores.
With decision filed on Oct. 13, the court of Milan inhibits Wjcon from the use of any store decor elements which are characteristic for Kiko’s stores and ordered the company to pay a compensation of damages to the extent of 716,250 euros, or $813,123 at current exchange. Wjcon will also have to remove any characteristic references in its 100 points of sales.
According to the court, the interior design concept of Kiko’s shops has an original and creative character, which deserves protection of the copyright law. Wjcon had copied the decor with only minor changes, which the court called “a slavish imitation of the complex behavior of commercial and promotional activities.”

What are the legal issues behind a Selfie?

Named “word of the year” in 2013 by Oxford dictionary, the selfie is a self-portrait taken by the user’s smartphone. This practice has become the pièce de résistance of some social networks, like Instagram or Snapchat, each equipped with their own unique attractions to selfie takers, like filters or the option to add commentary. Whether it is considered as a hobby or a heightening of societal individualism, the usage of the selfie raises many legal issues. From a legal standpoint, the selfie is governed by the right of publicity, which, in turn, derives from the right to privacy. Since the selfie is a photograph, the foremost issue is that of publicity rights. Whilst the situation is straightforward when a person takes their own photograph, it inevitably differs when a selfie becomes a group photograph. This matter is often resolved by assuming, correctly, that those featuring in the picture have consented to be photographed.
But consent usually does not go any further, which frequently gives rise to other problems. In this era of social networks, the author of the selfie will feel the urge – if not a reflex – to post the photograph on social platforms without having obtained the express agreement of relevant individuals. However, consent to be photographed and consent to having one’s photograph posted online are different. It is thus recommended to obtain the express consent of the persons photographed in order to publish and share the picture. For the record, the consent of individuals appearing on the photograph, albeit not as the chief object (including people in the background), is not required.
The selfie may also raise the question of image rights in relation to property. When the photograph is taken indoors, the right to privacy is of significance and it may be necessary to obtain the consent of the occupier of the premises. More importantly, when the selfie is inclusive of a good covered by copyright or other IP rights, the right holders are entitled to request the withdrawal of the photograph.
The selfie thus presents specific issues that should be handled with care, especially in respect of publication on social networks.

The Italian Data Protection Authority and the Right to Be Forgotten.

There are about fifty cases defined by the Data Protection Authority related to ordinary people, local public figures, professionals who have turned to the Authority after the rejection of requests for de-indexation by Google. Another dozen appeals are being defined.

This is the balance a year and half after the so-called ruling "Google Spain" (C-131/12) of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the right to be forgotten, that has forced Google to give a response to requests for removal, from the search results, links to web pages that contain the name of the applicant. 

In about a third of cases closed, the Data Protection Authority has accepted the request of the interested parties by ordering Google to remove links to pages on the web that reported data that are no longer in the public interest, information often excessive, referring to people foreign to each other Judicial narrated, or damaging to the private sphere. In all other cases, however, the Authority has rejected cases on the belief that Google's position was correct, invoking a predominant public interest in accessing information through search engines.  materiality of the information.

Italy bans free streaming of Serie A soccer matches.

A Milan court has ruled that streaming sites violate the copyright of the Italian top-flight and the Champions League and have ordered Italian internet suppliers to stop customers accessing them.

The suit was brought by Mediaset which claimed copyright infringement through the internet provider Fastweb.

For the first time in Italy a Court, has in fact ordered a major supplier of Italian Internet to inhibit all its customers access to the domain it.rojadirecta.eu, one of the main sites that systematically violates the Copyright races of Serie A and the Champions League.

At the same time, the court has also ordered the TLC company the immediate removal of all the sites named 'Rojadirecta', regardless of the country where they are registered, fixing a penalty of € 30,000 for each day of delay implementation of the measure.

The decision of the Court of Milan is the first of its kind, and is of particular relevance of case law on the subject of the fight against piracy. 

Cisac publishes new Global collections report.

The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) released its 2015 GLOBAL COLLECTIONS REPORT, concerning global royalty collections for the year 2014.

The total royalties collected in 2014 by CISAC’s 230 member societies, on behalf of the four million creators they represent around the world, returned to growth after a stable 2013. They amounted to €7.9 billion, up 2.8% from 2013. Had exchange rates not changed, total royalty collections would have grown 5% year-on-year.

Reflecting its commitment to bringing more information to the market faster, CISAC publishes a second economic report before the end of 2015, taking stock of the royalties collected worldwide by its member societies in the course of the previous year (2014). The first report published by CISAC this year (in February) concerned the figures for 2013.

Key trends:
•    Geographically, Europe continues to lead the world in royalty collections.
•    In terms of artistic repertoires, music remains the pillar of creators’ income.
•    Digital collections show promising signs and form a dynamic springboard for further growth. Totalling over €7.9 billion, the royalties collected globally by CISAC member societies rose again in 2014 (+ 2.8%) following a stable year in 2013.
•    Music repertoire continued to generate the bulk of collections (87% of the total) and the royalties collected for music use grew 2.4% year-on-year.
•    Other repertoires (audiovisual, drama, literature and visual arts) generated royalties that grew by 5.2%. The two strongest areas of growth were in audiovisual (+5%) and in visual arts (+16.5%).
•    Performing Rights collections, which represent 79% of total royalty collections, were up 3.8%.
•    Mechanical Reproduction Rights collections continued to decline, down 9% year-on-year.
•    Royalties collected from digital & multimedia services (for all repertoires combined) grew 20.2% year-on-year.
•    99% of the amounts collected from digital & multimedia services were for the use of music repertoire.
•    Europe, the region generating the most royalties (61.3% of the total, equating to €4.9 billion), posted year-on-year growth of 4.1%, higher than its GDP growth.
•    Canada-USA, CISAC’s second largest region with almost 17% of total royalty collections, showed the strongest increase in 2014 (+6.2%). 
•    The BRICS countries posted growth of 11%, an encouraging trend but slower than the 2013/2012 growth rate (+ 30%). BRICS countries account for 5% of global royalty collections.