Comments

6 responses to “PART G ARRANGEMENTS TO STRENGTHEN THE FUNCTIONING OF CONTEMPORARY CULTURE AGENCIES (Articles 76-85)”

1. 

   7779

   May 15, 2026

   Agree

   🤖 AI AnalysisℹAI analyzed this comment and extracted the main posts expressed by the author. Each position is broken down into arguments – click to see them.✦ Created with AI

   No export locations found.

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply
2. 

   7848

   May 15, 2026

   "COLLECTIVE UNION ACTION"
   A combination of Singers represented in the Administrative Bodies of the Union of Singers of Greece, the Panhellenic Federation of Hearing Spectacles (POTHA) and the Labour Centre of Athens (EKA).

   TO: MINISTER OF CONTEMPORARY CULTURE MAIN CHRIST DIMAS.

   Dear Deputy Minister,

   On the occasion of the submission of the Draft Law and, in particular, PART G’ ARRANGEMENTS FOR STRENGTHENING THE FUNCTIONING OF CONTEMPORARY CULTURE ORGANISATIONS / CHAPTER B ΄ (Articles 84 & 85) concerning Regulations on Copyright and Collective Management Organisations, we submit positions and opinions which have been communicated to and brought to the attention of the Ministry of Culture on several occasions in the past and we believe that their inclusion in the Law will contribute to a fairer framework for the operation of Collective Management Organisations and their clearer and more effective operation, always for the benefit of the working artists entitled to copyright and related rights.

   Findings-Positions-Proposals:

   1) We consider that the time period for changing Article 49(3) of Law 2121/1993 is now ripe and the equal distribution of the remuneration received from the related right between singers-musicians-producers should be established by law. Based on the current situation, the related right to Greek singing and music is distributed, by 25% The Singers, 25% for musicians, 50% to the producers. With the current conditions of production of sound recordings, as they have been shaped for several years, we propose an equal distribution to the three sectors of the beneficiaries. That's 1/3 distribution to singers, 1/3 distribution to musicians, 1/3 distribution to producers.

   2) Full rights to all members of Collective Management Organizations and abolition of the undemocratic phenomenon of the existence of beneficiary members with limited rights, without the right to vote and to stand for election to the governing bodies, a concept that does not exist in any Greek Law and in any European Directive.

   Legislative intervention in the current legislation on the operation of Collective Management Organisations, on specific issues of participation in collective procedures, in the general assembly, in elections and in votes:

   a) Mandatory presence of a Judicial Representative in the elections of Collective Management Organisations, regardless of the number of members.

   (b)Legislative and regulatory transparency framework, for the electronic voting function, where applicable.

   (c)Legislative transparency framework to ensure participation in the general meeting, voting and election by delegation from member to member. Ensuring the validity of the authorisation with an adequate degree of document security and ensuring the content of the delegate's mandate to the delegatee. Change of Article 9(6) of Law 4481/2017 and limitation of the number of members represented by a proxy member in the general meeting, in the votes and in the elections, from two members to one.

   4) Faithful application of the Format (special list recording the use of interpretations) by users in public performance and by law prohibiting the use in distribution to rightholders of data and playlists by private recording companies.

   5)Repeal of Article 8(3)(d)(aa) of Law 4481/2017, which provides for a derogation for collective management organisations from the institutional framework for the operation of cooperatives and Article 2(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Law 1667/1986, as regards the entry, withdrawal or exclusion of a partner.

   Yours sincerely,
   THE MEMBERS OF THE COLLECTIVE UNION ACTION AT THE BODY OF THE EIB:
   Argyro Kaparou, Tasos Katopodis, Maria Sultatou, Thelma Karagianni.

   🤖 AI AnalysisℹAI analyzed this comment and extracted the main posts expressed by the author. Each position is broken down into arguments – click to see them.✦ Created with AI

   📍 Equal distribution of rights (1/3) between singers, musicians and producers 1 business

   🟢 The current allocation 25/25/50 is unfair; equitable distribution ensures fairnessFact check

   📍 Provision of full rights to all DSD members, removal of restricted rights 1 business

   🟢 Limited rights are undemocratic and contrary to Greek and European legislationFact check

   📍 Compulsory presence of a judicial representative at the elections of the DSDs 1 business

   🟢 Legal presence ensures legal operation regardless of the number of membersFact check

   📍 Establishment of a transparency framework for the electronic voting function 1 business

   🟢 Ensures the reliability and fair outcome of electronic votingFact check

   📍 Amendment of Article 9(6) of Law 4481/2017: Restriction of a representative per proxy to one member 1 business

   🟢 Prevents hyperpersonality and enhances fair participationFact check

   📍 Prohibition of use of playlists by private recorders in distribution to rightholders 1 business

   🟢 Secures artists' rights and prevents unauthorized useFact check

   📍 Repeal of Article 8(3)(d)(aa) of Law 4481/2017 1 business

   🟢 The subsection is contrary to the legal framework of cooperativesFact check

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply
3. 

   7854

   May 15, 2026

   PART G ARRANGEMENTS TO STRENGTHEN THE FUNCTIONING OF CONTEMPORARY CULTURE ORGANISATIONS (Articles 76-85) – CHAPTER B΄ ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS AND COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS – Article 84 of the Draft Law amending Article 49 of Law 2121/1993 on copyright, related rights and cultural matters

   The organizations submitting this comment are professional associations of the domestic and international film and audiovisual sectors, representing producers and/or distributors of cinematographic works and television programmes. First of all, thank you in advance for the opportunity to comment on the draft law currently under public consultation entitled ‘Creative Greece: strengthening the cinematographic, audiovisual and creative sectors, and other provisions for contemporary culture’ (hereinafter, the ‘Draft Law’).
   The draft law focuses on strengthening the creative sector in Greece by strengthening, for example, the provisions on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. However, it contains a provision, namely Article 84 of the Draft Law, which amends Article 49 of Law 2121/1993, which appears to be intended to change the way in which the right to a single equitable remuneration, as reflected in Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (Related Rights Directive) (which in turn implements Article 15 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (hereinafter WPPT)), was incorporated into Greek law. This amendment, introduced by Article 84, goes beyond the provisions of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC (and Article 15 of the WPPT), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), in a way that would not only be detrimental to the film and audiovisual sector in Greece, but also in a way that would be contrary to EU law and international rules.

   The proposed new provision is as follows (changes are rendered in quotation marks):
   1. Where a legally recorded sound carrier is used, ‘either independently or embedded in an audiovisual work’, for broadcasting in any way, such as electromagnetic waves, satellites, cables, or for communication to the public, the user shall pay a single equitable remuneration to the performers whose performance has been recorded on the material carrier and to the producers of those media. This remuneration must be paid to collective rights management organisations. Those organisations are required to negotiate, agree on remuneration, make the relevant claims for payment and collect the relevant remuneration from users ‘at the request of the collective management organisations’.

   Under EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU in the Atresmedia case, which is then described in more detail, sound carriers incorporated into audiovisual works cease from the moment of their incorporation into the audiovisual work to be sound carriers or phonograms, as they become part of the audiovisual work itself.
   In particular, the proposed amendment would entail an obligation for television stations and other users of audiovisual works (e.g. catering outlets) to pay CMOs representing performers and music producers additional remuneration, in addition to that already paid by film/audiovisual producers at the time of the clearance of the rights for the incorporation of pre-existing music into their cinematographic works or television production programmes. In practice, this amounts to double payment.

   Background – Judgment of the CJEU: the obligation to pay a single equitable remuneration does not arise:

   On 18 November 2020, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Atresmedia (Atresmedia v AGEDI and AIE, Case C-147/19, EU:C:2020:935). This case was referred by the Spanish Supreme Court in an action originally brought against the broadcaster Atresmedia by two collective management organisations (CMOs) representing respective music producers/producers of sound carriers and performers in Spain. Those CMOs made claims for remuneration against Atresmedia in respect of pre-existing audio media incorporated or synchronised in audiovisual works (and thus in audiovisual recordings containing the fixation of the audiovisual works) which were subsequently communicated to the public by that broadcaster. In its judgment, the CJEU held that such audiovisual recordings containing the fixation of audiovisual works cannot be classified as a “phonogram” or a “reproduction of that phonogram” within the meaning of Directive 2006/115/EC. Consequently, the communication to the public of such an audiovisual recording incorporating music does not give rise to a right to remuneration under Directive 2006/115/EC.
   Following the arguments of Atresmedia and the European Commission, which intervened in support of it, the Court emphasised that the incorporation of pre-existing music into cinematographic works had been carried out under a “synchronisation” licence. Therefore, for the inclusion of pre-existing music in the audiovisual recording, the necessary licence and remuneration had already been granted. The objective of a harmonised and balanced approach to ensuring that labels and performers receive “appropriate income and the recovery of their investments” is achieved by contracting at the time of the incorporation of music into the audiovisual recording.
   The Court held that the position of music-related CMOs is not supported by the legislative framework of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC. Furthermore, the proposal that EU Member States are obliged to grant a right to remuneration for the communication to the public of an audiovisual work incorporating a phonogram does not follow from the interpretation of that article in the light of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention) and the WPPT. Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the single equitable remuneration referred to in that provision must not be paid by the user when making a communication to the public of an audiovisual recording containing the fixation on a tangible medium of an audiovisual work incorporating a phonogram or a reproduction of that phonogram.

   Such an amendment would be detrimental to the cinematographic and audiovisual sectors in Greece and contrary to EU law:

   In view of the above, the Atresmedia decision excludes claims for additional remuneration from CMOs of labels and performers across the EU. For the cinematographic and audiovisual sectors in general, this decision provides legal certainty for both the providers of licences for the incorporation of music and the licensees/recipients of such licences. It allows producers of cinematographic and audiovisual works in general to clear all rights necessary for the incorporation of pre-existing music already when obtaining the incorporation licence contract. Under the clarification provided by the CJEU, producers of cinematographic and audiovisual works remain able to license their works to television stations and other users (e.g. catering outlets), with the latter being confident that the relevant rights have been liquidated and no further remuneration for pre-existing music is due. The proposed amendment (Article 84(1) of the Draft Law) would negate the letter and spirit of the Atresmedia judgment by introducing an additional fee.
   While the Draft Law stipulates that the payment obligation lies with the user, the actual loss resulting from this amendment will be borne by producers of cinematographic and audiovisual works in general. Indeed, the introduction of an additional obligation to pay remuneration would negatively affect the entire economic chain, including the part of the chain that occupies the relationship between producers and television broadcasters, by reducing the value of the rights in cinematographic or audiovisual content over which the former may grant licences to the latter. The value of the license would decrease, while the cost would increase (since the user would be exposed to additional claims for payment of a fee-and also double payment). The impact on the economic chain of production would unnecessarily impose unfair financial burdens on both users and producers. Consequently, the producer of cinematographic and audiovisual works in general and the television station would also have reduced funds for reinvestment in new cinematographic and audiovisual works and services, which would operate to the detriment of all authors (including labels and performers), as well as the Greek and wider public.
   While recital 16 of Directive 2006/115/EC allows Member States “to provide, for holders of related rights, more extensive protection than that provided for in this Directive with regard to broadcasting and communication to the public”, that recital cannot concern and cover the proposed amendment. In C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg, Case C 279/13, EU:C:2015:199 (C More) the CJEU confirmed that under this recital it should be understood that Member States are free to grant exclusive rights to broadcasters in respect of communication to the public. However, more extensive rights must not “in any way prejudice the protection of copyright”. While the limitations on broader protection under Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc Directive) were not intended to prevent differences between national laws as regards acts “not expressly referred to in [Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC- InfoSoc Directive], recital 16 is not a blank cheque. It does not allow EU Member States to extend or change the concept of “communication to the public of a phonogram”. The reference to “broader protection” in this recital should be interpreted as the freedom of EU Member States to change only the nature of the protection granted (i.e. an exclusive right instead of a right to remuneration) and not to change the notion of “communication of a phonogram to the public”, which would affect the protection of copyright in cinematographic or audiovisual works in general and possibly the functioning of the internal market, given the potential for different approaches by Member States in this regard, thus hindering licensing within the EU.
   In conclusion, the proposed amendment to Law 2121/1993 on copyright, related rights and cultural matters is not only potentially harmful to the cinematographic and audiovisual sectors in general, but also contrary to EU law. Therefore, the existing Article 49 of Law 2121/1993 should not be amended and Article 84.1 of the draft Law under discussion should be deleted.

   🤖 AI AnalysisℹAI analyzed this comment and extracted the main posts expressed by the author. Each position is broken down into arguments – click to see them.✦ Created with AI

   📍 Deletion of Article 84(1) of the Draft Law 5 business

   🟢 The amendment would be detrimental to the film and audiovisual sectorFact check

   🟢 The amendment is contrary to EU lawFact check

   🟢 Will create double payment and additional financial chargesFact check

   🟢 Will reduce the value of licenses and increase production costsFact check

   🟢 Contradicts the interpretation of Directive 2006/115/EC and the Atresmedia judgmentFact check

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply
4. 

   7866

   May 15, 2026

   OTE’s comments on Article 84 – Amendment of Article 49(1) of Law 2121/1993

   The envisaged amendment runs counter to EU res judicata, in particular the Atresmedia judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-146/19), but also to international conventions, namely the Rome Convention and the WPPT, which are part of the European Union’s legal order.
   Furthermore, the amendment of Article 49(1) of Law 2121/93 ignores the case-law of the CJEU and the interpretation of the legal terms of EU directives in the light of international conventions. According to the settled case-law of the CJEU, a provision of EU law for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union.
   Such an amendment could only be made by the EU legislator.

   According to the Atresmedia judgment, where a soundtrack is incorporated (synchronised) into a film or series, that incorporation is effected with the authorisation of the rightholders (producers of the sound carrier, performers/singers, performers/musicians), who receive their remuneration from the producer of the audiovisual work at the time of the incorporation.
   The CJEU pointed out that the concept of a phonogram (which is not defined in Directive 2006/115, Article 8(2) of which was transposed into Greek law by Article 49 of Law 2121/93) is defined in international instruments (Rome Convention and WPPT) excluding the classification of sound recording/musical investment as a phonogram in the case of its incorporation in an audiovisual work.
   In that case (that is to say, in the case of fixation), the soundtrack cannot be classified as a phonogram within the meaning of the above international conventions, because no equitable remuneration is due. It is clarified that the notion of phonogram is equivalent to the term sound carrier (referred to in Article 49(1)).

   In any event, the rights of producers and performers in phonograms shall not be affected:
   – Where the phonogram is incorporated into an audiovisual work, the rightholders usually receive remuneration from the producer of the audiovisual work.
   – In addition, the phonogram, which is released independently of the audiovisual work, can be exploited separately.

   Therefore, the provision of Article 49(1) of Law 2121/1993 should remain exactly as it is currently in force.

   🤖 AI AnalysisℹAI analyzed this comment and extracted the main posts expressed by the author. Each position is broken down into arguments – click to see them.✦ Created with AI

   📍 Maintenance of Article 49(1) as in force 7 B.C.

   🟢 The proposed amendment conflicts with the Atresmedia judgment (C‑146/19)Fact check

   🟢 Contravenes the Rome and WPPT international conventions, part of European lawFact check

   🟢 Disregards CJEU case-law on the interpretation of EU directivesFact check

   🟢 The concept of phonogram is defined by international conventions and does not include soundtrackFact check

   🟢 Only the EU legislator can introduce such an amendmentFact check

   🟢 Producers' and performers' rights are not affected, as they already receive remunerationFact check

   🟢 Maintaining the text ensures uniform interpretation throughout the UnionFact check

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply
5. 

   7868

   May 15, 2026

   COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 49 OF LAW 2121/1993

   The proposed amendment, which consists in adding the words ‘either independently or incorporated in an audiovisual work’, seeks, in a manner of questionable legality and validity, to overturn, or otherwise circumvent, the application of the Atresmedia judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-146/19) within the Greek legal order. In addition, the proposed addition is in direct contradiction with both the Rome Convention and the WIPO PERFORMANCES AND PHONOGRAMS TREATY (WPPT), which forms part of the European Union's classification. If this amendment is passed, it will place an unjustified and unlawful burden on users (broadcasters) when broadcasting audiovisual works incorporating a sound carrier.
   In particular:
   1. A condition for equitable remuneration under Article 49(1) of Law 2121/1993, the provision of which transposes Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 (92/100) , into Greek law, is the use of a sound recording (phonogram) lawfully recorded for the purpose of broadcasting and communication to the public.
   2. The CJEU, in the Atresmedia judgment, confirms the position that no sound recording/musical investment incorporated in a cinematographic or other audiovisual work falls within the concept of ‘phonogram’ as defined in Article 3(b) of the Rome Convention and Article 2(b) of the WPPT and, therefore, in such cases, there is no entitlement to equitable remuneration for rightholders (producers and performers) as provided for in Article 12 of the Rome Convention and Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 (Article 49(1) of Law 2121/93).
   3. In addition to the above assumption under (2), it should be noted that the audiovisual work itself, in which the sound recording/musical investment is incorporated, cannot be regarded as a ‘phonogram’ within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 , in the light of the provisions of the WPPT and Article 49(1) thereof, or as a ‘reproduction of that phonogram’. Consequently, the transmission or even communication to the public of the audiovisual work as a single collective work does not establish the right to equitable remuneration under Article 49(1) of Law 2121/1993 to rightholders (producers and performers).
   4. Therefore, when a soundtrack is incorporated (synchronised) in a film the series, this incorporation is carried out with the permission of the rightholders (producer of the material, performer/singer, performer/musician) who at the time of incorporation receive their remuneration from the producer of the audiovisual work. In this case? (i.e. in the case of embodiment), the musical investment/soundtrack cannot be classified as a phonogram (a sound recording) in the sense of international conventions and therefore no additional equitable remuneration is due when users broadcast such an audiovisual work. Otherwise the producers of the material, performers/songwriters, performers/musicians would be double-paid by the users (television organisations).
   In the above context, the proposed amendment to Article 49(1) of Law 2121/93 (introduced by Article 84 of the draft Law) ignores the case-law of the CJEU and the interpretation of the legal terms of EU law with reference to international conventions, as it attempts to extend, in a manner directly contrary to the above, the right of collective management organisations to receive equitable remuneration on sound carriers legally incorporated in audiovisual works. Therefore, the provision of Article 49(1) of Law 2121/1993 should remain as currently in force.

   🤖 AI AnalysisℹAI analyzed this comment and extracted the main posts expressed by the author. Each position is broken down into arguments – click to see them.✦ Created with AI

   📍 Maintenance of Article 49(1) as in force, without the addition of new words 5 business

   🟢 The addendum is of questionable legality and tries to circumvent the Atresmedia rulingFact check

   🟢 coincides with the Rome Convention and the WPPTFact check

   🟢 Will impose an unjustified and unlawful burden on broadcastersFact check

   🟢 Ignores CJEU case law and interpretation of European lawFact check

   🟢 Unjustifiably widens the right to receive remuneration from management organisationsFact check

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply
6. 

   7880

   May 15, 2026

   "COLLECTIVE UNION ACTION"
   A combination of Singers represented in the Administrative Bodies of the Union of Singers of Greece, the Panhellenic Federation of Hearing Spectacles (POTHA) and the Labour Centre of Athens (EKA).

   TO: MINISTER OF CONTEMPORARY CULTURE MAIN CHRIST DIMAS.

   Dear Deputy Minister,

   On the occasion of the submission of the Draft Law and, in particular, PART G’ ARRANGEMENTS FOR STRENGTHENING THE FUNCTIONING OF CONTEMPORARY CULTURE ORGANISATIONS / CHAPTER B ΄ (Articles 84 & 85) concerning Regulations on Copyright and Collective Management Organisations, we submit positions and opinions which have been communicated to and brought to the attention of the Ministry of Culture on several occasions in the past and we believe that their inclusion in the Law will contribute to a fairer framework for the operation of Collective Management Organisations and their clearer and more effective operation, always for the benefit of the working artists entitled to copyright and related rights.

   Findings-Positions-Proposals:

   1) We consider that the time period for changing Article 49(3) of Law 2121/1993 is now ripe and the equal distribution of the remuneration received from the related right between singers-musicians-producers should be established by law. Based on the current situation, the related right to Greek singing and music is distributed, by 25% The Singers, 25% for musicians, 50% to the producers. With the current conditions of production of sound recordings, as they have been shaped for several years, we propose an equal distribution to the three sectors of the beneficiaries. That's 1/3 distribution to singers, 1/3 distribution to musicians, 1/3 distribution to producers.

   2) Full rights to all members of Collective Management Organizations and abolition of the undemocratic phenomenon of the existence of beneficiary members with limited rights, without the right to vote and to stand for election to the governing bodies, a concept that does not exist in any Greek Law and in any European Directive.

   Legislative intervention in the current legislation on the operation of Collective Management Organisations, on specific issues of participation in collective procedures, in the general assembly, in elections and in votes:

   a) Mandatory presence of a Judicial Representative in the elections of Collective Management Organisations, regardless of the number of members.

   b) Legislative and regulatory transparency framework, for the , electronic voting function where applicable.

   (c)Legislative transparency framework to ensure participation in the general meeting, voting and election by delegation from member to member. Ensuring the validity of the authorisation with an adequate degree of document security and ensuring the content of the delegate's mandate to the delegatee. Change of Article 9(6) of Law 4481/2017 and limitation of the number of members represented by a proxy member in the general meeting, in the votes and in the elections, from two members to one.

   4) Faithful application of the Format (special list recording the use of interpretations) by users in public performance and by law prohibiting the use in distribution to rightholders of data and playlists by private recording companies.

   5)Repeal of Article 8(3)(d)(aa) of Law 4481/2017, which provides for a derogation for collective management organisations from the institutional framework for the operation of cooperatives and Article 2(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Law 1667/1986, as regards the entry, withdrawal or exclusion of a partner.

   Yours sincerely,
   THE MEMBERS OF THE COLLECTIVE UNION ACTION AT THE BODY OF THE EIB:
   Argyro Kaparou, Tasos Katopodis, Maria Sultatou, Thelma Karagianni.

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply