New technology & data privacy blog

London information technology & internet law firm Crefovi is delighted to bring you this new technology & data privacy blog, to provide you with forward-thinking and insightful information on hot business and legal issues in the digital & high technology sectors.

This new technology & data privacy blog provides regular news and updates, and features summaries of recent news reports, on legal issues facing the global information technology, media and internet community, in particular in the United Kingdom and France. This new technology & data privacy blog also provides timely updates and commentary on legal issues in the hardware, software and e-commerce sectors. It is curated by the IT lawyers of our law firm, who specialise in advising our information technology & internet clients in London, Paris and internationally on all their legal issues.

Crefovi practices in information technology, hardware & software since 2003, in Paris, London and internationally. Crefovi advises a wide range of clients, from start-ups in the tech world requiring legal advice on contractual, tax and intellectual property issues, to large corporations – renowned in the information technology and ‟Consumer discretionary” sectors – which require advice to negotiate and finalise their licencing or distribution deals, or to enforce their intellectual property rights. Crefovi’s ‟Internet & digital media” team participates in  high-profile transactions. It assists leading established and emerging companies in mergers and acquisitions; litigation, including intellectual property litigation; financing transactions; securities offerings; structuring cross-border international operations; technology and intellectual property transactions; joint ventures and in matters involving online speech, privacy rights, advertising, e-commerce and consumer protection, and regulatory issues. Crefovi writes and curates this new technology & data privacy blog to guide its clients through the complexities of information technology, and internet & digital media, law.

The founding and managing partner of Crefovi, Annabelle Gauberti, regularly attends, and is a speaker on panels organised during, important events from the calendar of the world of information technology and internet, such as the tradeshows CES, Slush, SXSW, Viva Technology, Wired and Web Summit.

Moreover, Crefovi has industry teams, built by experienced lawyers with a wide range of practice and geographic backgrounds. These industry teams apply their extensive industry expertise to best serve clients’ business needs. Some of these industry teams are the ‟Information technology, hardware & software”, as well as the ‟Internet & digital media” departments, which curate this new technology & data privacy blog below, for you. 

Annabelle Gauberti, founding and managing partner of London information technology & internet law firm Crefovi, is also the president of the International association of lawyers for creative industries (ialci). This association is instrumental in providing very high quality seminars, webinars & brainstorming sessions on legal & business issues to which the creative industries are confronted.

Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as Linkedin, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!

Why the UK TuneIn judgments are a return to the dark ages

Crefovi : 14/04/2021 2:56 pm : Antitrust & competition, Articles, Consumer goods & retail, Copyright litigation, Entertainment & media, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Litigation & dispute resolution, Music law

What happens when you let some old farts from the UK judiciary, fueled by a doomed Brexit, single-handedly decide the technological future, advances and boon to which UK users should have access to? Well, stupid business choices justified by perfectly elegant and intellectually stimulating legal decisions handed down by old timers on a rampage to make ‟Britain great again”. I am sorry that TuneIn had to pay such a hefty price, on the UK market but, oh boy, it did.

TuneInAs a daily jogger, I am an early adopter, and fervent user, of radio apps, such as Radio Garden and TuneIn, in order to listen to, in particular, Los Angeles’ radio stations such as KCRW Eclectic 24 and KPFK, while I am practising my daily and morning sport exercises. While at home, I listen to French radio stations such as FIP or Nova, or to LA channels, via Tunein which is accessible on my Sonos home sound systems, software (installed on my two iphones) and speakers.

However, over the last year or so, I could not help but notice that European radio stations, such as FIP or France Inter, were no longer accessible from either TuneIn station or Sonos Radio station, while I am in the United Kingdom (‟UK”).

Well, now I know why. Indeed, I read today the 3 latest issues from Music Confidential published by Susan Butler on the ‟TuneIn appellate decision” (sic).

Intrigued, I decided to delve deeper into this case and gulped (there is no other word) the 47 pages of the Warner Music UK Ltd and Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd versus TuneIn Inc decision handed down by the High court of justice of England & Wales on 1 November 2019, as well as the 56 pages of the TuneIn Inc versus Warner Music UK Limited and Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited judgment handed down by the Court of appeal on 26 March 2021.

Whilst I admire the intellectual virtuosity of the first degree judge, Justice Birss, displayed in the above-mentioned first degree decision, as well as the ‟strong hand in a velvet glove” approach favoured by the appeal judge, Justice Arnold, in the appellate judgment, I can only conclude that this exercise in intellectual masturbation by the judiciary has led, yet again, to another castration of a technological product full of creativity, advancement, connectivity to the world and fantastic ubiquity.

Am I therefore pissed off?

Yes. Here is why.

Are you actually saying that TuneIn should ditch internet radio stations which are unlicensed in the UK?

The ‟modus operandi” of TuneIn is to operate an online platform, website and apps, which provide a service enabling users to access radio stations around the world. The service is called TuneIn Radio.

It is now available on over 200 platform connected devices, including smart phones, tablets, televisions, car audio systems, smart speakers such as Sonos, and wearable technologies.

TuneIn Radio has links to over 100,000 radio stations, broadcast by third parties from many different geographic locations around the world. It is monetised through advertising and subscriptions, although the subscription is free for many users of hardware products such as Sonos and Bose sound systems.

TuneIn Radio is awesome because, like Radio Garden, it allows users to save some radio channels as favourites, offers some curation services as well as some search functions, which a new user may use when he or she does not know what radio stations he or she may like. In addition, TuneIn Radio provides perks such as personalisation of content, collation of station information presented on individual station pages, and artist information set out on dedicated artist pages.

Even better, until a few years ago, TuneIn Radio offered a recording device, through its Pro app, which also included a curated repertoire of a large number of music internet radio stations.

As a user, you are therefore blissfully entertained, and your every musical needs catered for, when using the full gamut of TuneIn Radio’s perks and services.

Well, such users’ bliss was short-lived, however, since the High court decision, confirmed by the 2021 appellate judgment, found that by including internet radio stations which are either unlicensed, such as Capital FM Bangladesh and Urban 96.5 Nigeria, or not compliant with the local neighbouring rights regime, such as Kazakhstan station Gakku FM and Montenegro’s City Radio, TuneIn Radio was infringing under section 20 of the 1988 Copyright, designs and patents act (the ‟Act”) which provides:

20. Infringement by communication to the public
(1) The communication to the public of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in—
(a) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work,
(b) a sound recording or film, or
(c) a broadcast.

(2) References in this Part to communication to the public are to communication to the public by electronic transmission, and in relation to a work include—
(a) the broadcasting of the work;
(b) the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

So not only those unlicensed and non-compliant internet radio stations are in breach of the right to communicate to the public, but TuneIn Radio is too, since it provides links to those streams.

Had TuneIn Radio not obtained a warranty from those internet radio stations that they operated lawfully in their home state? God forbid, TuneIn Radio could not rely on such warranty, of course, and the onus was on TuneIn Radio to double-check that such internet radio stations were either licensed or compliant with their local neighbouring rights regime.

So what is the direct consequence of such stance, taken by the UK High court and Court of appeal? Well, all those internet radio stations become unavailable to the public, in the UK but also probably in other European countries such as the 27 member-states of the European Union (‟EU”), via the TuneIn Radio platforms, websites and apps.

Indeed, all the reasoning made by Justice Birss, in the first degree case, as well as Justice Arnold, in the appellate case, revolved around article 3 of the EU Information Society Directive (the ‟Directive”), which was transposed into the above-mentioned section 20 of the Act, and the abondant, eye-wateringly complex and excruciatingly intricate related case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‟CJEU”) on the right of communication to the public.

So, yeah, you bet, this TuneIn case is valid both for the UK (which has now exited the EU via its unwitty Brexit), and the 27 remaining member-states of the EU.

Therefore, users and customers lose because they cannot listen to all worldwide internet radio streams via TuneIn anymore, as a direct consequence of the UK decisions.

And it does not stop there! Perish the thought.

What about those music radio stations which are licensed for a local territory other than the UK, such as VRT Studio Brussel in Belgium, Mix Megapol in Sweden and MavRadio in the USA?

For these radio stations outside the USA, the countries operate various kinds of remuneration rights regimes and these stations are paying remuneration under these local schemes. The USA operates a statutory licence scheme conditional on paying royalties and the sample radio MavRadio pays those royalties. However, in all of these cases, the relevant body has not granted geographical rights for the UK.

Ahhh, the UK first degree judgement, confirmed in appeal says, that’s not my problem, my dear sir: TuneIn’s act of communication in relation to those sample radio streams which pay royalties to a body that does not grant geographical rights for the UK, is unlawful, unless licensed by the UK rights holder. Since it is currently not, TuneIn’s actions amount to infringement under above-mentioned section 20 of the Act.

Therefore, TuneIn has to now remove all this pool of internet radio stations from its platforms, apps and websites too, until it has figured out how to strike a deal with the UK rights holders.

Probably, TuneIn’s best call is to reach out to the UK neighbouring rights collecting society, PPL, and start the licensing negotiations from there, immediately. Also, TuneIn better cooperate directly with labels Warner and Sony, to strike those licences, now that the UK first degree decision has been confirmed in appeal and since these two claimants ‟account for more than half the market for digital sales of recorded music in the UK and about 43 percent globally” (sic).

While I can understand that the UK courts would slam TuneIn for not proactively getting a UK neighbouring rights’ licence for its own premium radio stations, made available exclusively to TuneIn’s subscribers, I found it profoundly castrating to make TuneIn’s liable for primary infringement of the right of communication to the public for merely providing streams to unlicensed and non-compliant third party internet radio stations and to third party internet radio stations which do not pay royalties in the UK.

What about the right of UK and EU users to have access to as much culture, musical experience and knowhow, as possible, even in a geopolitical context where most countries in the world do not care about, and probably don’t even know what are, neighbouring rights?

This is directly discriminating UK and, probably, all EU listeners and users, because TuneIn will now have to geoblock all its links to non-compliant and unruly streams, which probably constitute at least 50 percent of the 100,000 internet radio stations available on its apps, platforms and websites.

So Justice Birss and Justice Arnold can now breathe a sigh of relief, at the thought of having saved European neighbouring rights in the face or barbarian non-British cultural invasion, but I am sure that most UK users of TuneIn only have a ‟fuck you” to respond in return, for their ill-advised, technologically-stiffling and Brexitist stance on the matter.

Now, by using TuneIn Radio, a UK user will only have access to music radio stations which are licensed in the UK by PPL, such as BBC Radio 2, Heart London, Classic FM and Jazz FM. Thank you very much, but we can already access those radio channels on our terrestrial radio sets or on their respective online platforms, from the UK, so what is the added value of TuneIn Radio in the UK now, pray tell?

So I can’t use the recording service on TuneIn anymore?

Of course, Justice Birss, and then Justice Arnold, went for the jugular with respect to the recording option by users of TuneIn’s Pro app.

Indeed, in terms of a user’s use of the recording function, the claimants contended that the Pro app was not just a recording device. It also included a curated repertoire of a large number of music internet radio stations. The purchaser of the Pro app would, reasonably, understand that TuneIne had sold them the Pro app (with its built in recording function) in order to allow them to record audio content offered by the TuneIn Radio service. There was also a point on the degree of control exercised by TuneIn. Only internet radio stations provided by TuneIn could be recorded and TuneIn could disable the record function at a station-by-station level.

While this TuneIn recording function was a very original, and unique, offered feature, in the competitive world of radio aggregators, the High court decision, confirmed in appeal, swiftly killed it, by finding that ‟TuneIn had authorised the infringements carried out by its users by recording using the Pro app” and therefore ‟TuneIn’s service via the Pro app when the recording function was enabled infringed the claimants’ copyrights under Section 20 of the Act”.

Even if Justice Arnold allowed the appeal, in his appellant judgment, against the conclusion drawn by the first degree judge, that TuneIn was liable for infringement by communication to the public in relation to the ‟category 1” stations (i.e. the internet radio stations which already are licensed in the UK via PPL) by virtue of providing the Pro app to UK users with the record function enabled, the outcome is the same: off with its head, with respect to the great recording function offered by TuneIn’s Pro app.

As Susan Butler wisely wrote, in her Music Confidential’s last three issues, ‟in my view, however, that does not mean that (intellectual property) must be disruptive to digital innovation across national borders”. ‟(…) the bad kind of disruption – the costly and destructive kind – seems to occur most often when anyone tries to drag old business models or entities built around old business models into new multi-national digital marketplace. (…) Everyone must become more pliable to truly reshape the market to support true innovation”.

Well, Susan, with the old farts who handed down the 2019 and then 2021 decisions (check them out on the audio-video recorded hearings here!), count on it.

Another example of UK splendid and backward looking isolation, my friends: where is my visa to move to Los Angeles asap, please?



Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




    Your name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Subject

    Your message

    captcha


     

    Leave a response »

    Crefovi’s take on EFM online 2021: finally, the digital revolution has come to the film industry!

    Crefovi : 18/03/2021 11:28 am : Articles, Copyright litigation, Entertainment & media, Events, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Technology transactions

    Crefovi’s founding and managing partner, Annabelle Gauberti, attended, by way of her MacBookPro, the EFM online 2021 session from 1 to 5 March 2021. What are Crefovi’s key takeaways from the first European film festival and market of the year? Was this online session a success, managing to link buyers and sellers, as well as their respective service providers, together?

    EFM online 2021Distributors’ need for European content to meet the statutory ratios set out in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (‟AVMSD”)

    As part of its push towards shaping Europe’s digital future, in the digital single market, the European Union (‟EU”) adopted the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (‟AVMSD”) in November 2018.

    This directive had to be transposed by September 2020 into national legislation in the 27 EU member-states. Yet, since only Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden notified transposition measures to the EU, the EU Commission sent formal notices to all the other 23 EU member-states, requesting them to provide further information, in November 2020.

    Be that as it may, the AVMSD is already impacting the buying strategy of distributors and other streaming companies (called ‟streamers” during the EFM online 2021 session).

    Indeed, the AVMSD governs EU-wide coordination of national legislation on all audiovisual media, both traditional TV broadcasts and on-demand services.

    Since one of the goals of this EU coordination, via the AVMSD, is to preserve cultural diversity, each EU member-state is currently figuring out how best to transpose into national law the new obligation, for video on-demand services (which include streamers), to ensure at least a 30 percent share of European content in their catalogues, and to give prominence to such European content. The provisions of the AVMSD also allow, under certain conditions, EU member-states to impose on media service providers that are established in other member-states, obligations to contribute financially to the production of European works. The new obligations do not apply to media service providers with a low turnover or a low audience, in order not to undermine market development and inhibit the entry of new market players.

    So, of course, the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ are opening their large purses freely, in order to catch the best European titles, and therefore meet the 30 percent share of European works, which is a ‟sine qua non” condition for them to keep on, or start (in the case of Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max), offering their video on-demand services to EU consumers.

    This was a blessing for European film producers, directors and sales agents present at the EFM online 2021 session. Indeed, a lot of key deals were signed at the European Film Market, this year, for European titles such as French work ‟Petite Maman” from Céline Sciamma, Radu Jude’s Golden Bear winner ‟Bad Luck Banging Or Loony Porn” (from Romania), and many more.

    COVID 19’s negative impact on the production stage of film projects and how the UK and French film industry stakeholders rebounded

    There is another reason why current new film content has not met the high demand (for European titles and other international works) in the supply chain. Well, you guessed it, the COVID 19 pandemic is the cause, of course.

    Due to health and safety issues, the logistics of going into the film production stage have, for a while, seemed unsurmountable. Almost all film productions shut down, during the first European lockdown in February to June 2020. Then, everybody took a hold of themselves and went back to work, putting in place extremely stringent health and safety precautionary measures, pre, during and post production, such as:

    • administering PCR COVID test to all above-the-line and below-the-line production staff upon entry in the UK and France, and then on each day of production;
    • mandatory wear of personal protective equipment for all staff other than actors currently filming;
    • keeping the mandatory 2 meters’ apart distanciation rule, between all team members.

    Major talents and film producers would have none of the nonsense that COVID deniers would throw their way, with Tom Cruise going on record for his outburst towards UK film crew members who were flouting social distancing guidelines, on the Leavesden set of the 7th instalment of his ‟Mission: impossible” franchise, in December 2020.

    The panel for EFM online 2021 session, from the British film commission, provides vivid description of how UK film producers and their staff had to adapt, at very short notice, when the pandemic hit in 2020, and how they are regularly reviewing and improving their health and logistics protocols, in order to ensure that they are compliant with the latest health news and information about the virus.

    Also, the cost of insurance went through the roof, for most film productions around the world, making it impossible for many a project to move onto production stage. This disproportionately impacted independent filmmakers, to the point that governments stepped in, such as the UK government issuing a ‟Film & TV production restart scheme” for UK film and TV productions struggling to get insurance for Covid-related costs.

    Of course, at the end of the film supply chain, a major change occurred, thanks to the pandemic: the tyranny, imposed by major film studios and European governments, consisting in forbidding ‟day-and-date” release (i.e. a simultaneous release of a film on multiple platforms – most commonly theatrical and on-demand videos services), dissolved. Cinemas have been closed for a while, now, since March 2020, on-and-off, due to the pandemic-induced lockdown. Therefore, there is a change of paradigm, for film producers and directors, from asking themselves ‟Should we go for a day-and-date release?”, to ‟On which video on-demand service and/or streamer, my film will shine most?”.

    Indeed, die-hard fans of the theatrical window have started to yield, such as film major Universal pictures which released big films on streamers from March 2020 onwards.

    Other major studios have preferred to hold back releasing many big titles indefinitely, such as Wes Anderson’s ‟The French dispatch”, much to the chagrin of end-consumers and fans.

    EFM online 2021: filling the gap for more top-quality content with VFX hacks such as virtual production

    One of the major takeaways from the EFM online 2021 is that, due to this huge demand for content, film professionals need to produce more, faster, at an affordable cost, and in very high production value.

    This is where virtual production is coming, to deliver this faster, smoother and enhanced quality.

    From the moment where the initial upfront cost and investment of acquiring top virtual production tools and material have been incurred, it is a no-brainer: virtual production specialists laude the cost and time savings, as well as agility, induced by this new technology, predicting that every filmmaker will irresistibly move to virtual production in the near future.

    So what is virtual production? Virtual production is the use and incorporation of visual effects (‟VFX”) and technology throughout the production life cycle. While this process is not entirely new, the film industry is now paying much attention to virtual production, because it enhances production planning, increases shooting efficiency and reduces the number of expensive reshoots. Through visualisation, motion capture, hybrid camera, and LED live-action, the virtual production techniques that belong to the toolset of modern content creation are perfectly adapted to a COVID 19-era of film production.

    Potentially, virtual production would allow actors, and crew members, to shoot and work from multiple locations, in a safe environment where they have set up their respective COVID-19 health and safety protocols and bubble.

    The challenge now is for film professionals to jump on the bandwagon and swiftly obtain appropriate training on virtual production and other VFX tools and technologies, so that they can hit the ground running and offer their new much-needed skills to French and UK film productions.

     

    To conclude, while I would have liked all presentations and virtual events to be accessible to all participants, during the EFM online 2021 (festival organisers cannot pretend that the room has a limited number of seats, anymore, right?), I deeply enjoyed the virtual attendance of this film market and festival, getting a lot out of it, from catching up on the latest trends to catching up with our film clients and prospects via Cinando and the online EFM platform. We will be back!



    Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




      Your name (required)

      Your email (required)

      Subject

      Your message

      captcha


      Leave a response »

      How to remedy a breach of license which term is overran?

      Crefovi : 27/11/2020 12:43 pm : Antitrust & competition, Articles, Consumer goods & retail, Copyright litigation, Emerging companies, Entertainment & media, Fashion law, Gaming, Hospitality, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Law of luxury goods, Life sciences, Litigation & dispute resolution, Technology transactions, Trademark litigation

      In the creative industries, many intellectual property rights, such as copyright, trademarks, registered designs and patents, are subjected to licenses, in order for right owners and creators to monetize such rights. However, things do not always go smoothly during and after the term of the licensing agreement, between the licensor and the licensee. Therefore, what are the remedies that the licensor may put in place, in order to ensure that his or her intellectual property rights are fairly monetised? How to remedy a breach of license which term is overran?

      How to remedy a breach of license which term is overran?1. What is a license agreement?

      A license is the contract which authorises the use of a certain intellectual property right (‟IPRs”), be it copyright, a trademark, a design or a patent, for commercial purposes, by a licensee, in exchange for the payment of royalties to the licensor, i.e. the right owner. These royalties are usually computed as a percentage of the turnover generated by the sale of products manufactured, or services provided, by the licensee under this license agreement.

      A license is different from an assignment agreement, in that the former has a limited term, whereby the authorisation to use the IPRs granted to the licensee by the licensor will expire, after a period of time explicitly set out in the license agreement. On the contrary, an assignment is a perpetual and irreversible transfer of ownership of some designated IPRs, from the assignor to the assignee, in exchange for the payment of a consideration (usually, a one-off sum of money).

      To resume, a license is temporary and reversible upon expiry of a term, while an assignment is irrevocable and irreversible if made for consideration.

      2. How are licenses used in the creative industries?

      Licenses are often used in the creative industries, in order for creatives to monetise the IPRs that they created.

      For example, in the music industry, many copyright licenses are entered into, in order for music distributors to distribute the masters of sound recordings to new territories, which are difficult to reach for the music label which owns such masters because this label is located in a totally different geographical area. Therefore, the licensor, the music label, relies on the expertise of the local licensee, the national distributor, to put in place the best local strategy to broadcast the masters of its sound recordings, via radio plays, local streaming websites, TV broadcasting, and then to generate revenues through these various income streams and local neighbouring rights collecting societies.

      Another example of a copyright license, in the fashion and luxury sectors, is when a brand commissions an artist or designer to make some drawings and designs, which the brand will then display on its website(s), as well as in its various stores. These drawings and designs being protected by copyright, the brand, as licensee, will enter into a license agreement with the artist, as licensor, to obtain the right to use these drawings and designs in set locations and premises of this brand.

      Licenses are also extremely widely used in the context of trademarks, especially with respect to distribution of luxury and fashion products on new geographical territories by local distributors (who need to have the right to use the trademark to advertise, market and open retail locations), and also with respect to deals where the licensee manufactures products in which it has a lot of expertise (such as perfumes, cosmetics, children’s garments), which the licensee then sells under the trademark of a famous fashion or luxury brand, i.e. the licensor.

      In the technology sector, patent and/or copyright licenses are the norm. Indeed, softwares and sources codes are protected by copyright, so many tech companies make a living licensing their copyright into such inventions, to their retail or business customers, in exchange for some royalties and/or licensing fees. As far as technological products are concerned, those can be protected by patents, provided that they are novel, that an inventive step was present in creating such products, and that the invention is capable of industrial application. Therefore, most technological hardware products, such as mobile phones, computers, tablets, are protected by patents. And whenever there is a dichotomy between the creator of these products, and the manufacturers and distributors of such products, then some patent license agreements are entered into.

      Technology licenses are, indeed, so critical, that fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (‟FRAND”) have been set up in order to level the playing field: FRAND terms denote a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organisations often request from the owner of an IPR (usually a patent) which is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard. One of the most common policies, is for the standard- setting organisation to require from a patent holder that it voluntarily agrees to include its patented technology in the standard, by licensing that technology on FRAND terms. Failing or refusing to license IPRs on FRAND terms could even be deemed to infringe antitrust rules, in particular those of the European Union (‟EU”). For example, the EU commission sent a statement of objections to Motorola Mobility, for breach of EU antitrust rules, over its attempt to enforce a patent infringement injunction against Apple in Germany. The patents in question relate to GPRS, a part of the GSM standard, which is used to make mobile phone calls. Motorola accepted that these patents were standard essential patents and had, therefore, agreed that they would be licensed to Apple on FRAND terms. However, in 2011, Motorola tried to take out, and enforce, a patent infringement injunction against Apple in Germany, based on those patents, even although Apple had said that it was willing to pay royalties, to use the patented technology. Samsung was also the recipient of a statement of objections from the EU commission, after it sought patent infringement injunctions to ‟prevent Apple from infringing patents”, despite Apple apparently being willing to pay a license fee and negotiate a license on FRAND terms.

      3. How to remedy a breach of license which term is overran: what to do if the license has expired but your licensee keeps on using your IPRs?

      Due to poor management and in-house record-keeping, as well as human resources disorganisation and high turnover rate of staff, the licensee may breach the licensing agreement by keeping on using the licensed IPR, although the license agreement has reached its term.

      For example, in the above-mentioned case of the copyright license on some masters of sound recordings, the French local distributors and licensees of such masters overran the term of the license and kept on collecting royalties and revenues on those masters, in particular from French neighbouring rights collecting societies, well after the date of termination of this license. How, on earth, could have this happened? Well, as I experienced first hand at the music trade show Midem, many music distributors, labels and catalogues’ owners, such as music publishers, often mingle together in order to buy and sell to each other music catalogues, be it of copyrighted musical compositions and lyrics, or of copyrighted masters of sound recordings. Therefore, the terms of the first license agreement, between the licensor and the initial first licensee, become more and more blurry and forgotten, with basic provisions, such as the duration of the initial license, being conveniently lost into oblivion by the generation of successive licensees. Yes, I guarantee you, it happens very often.

      Another example, relating to the above-mentioned case of a copyright license granted by an artist, on his drawings and designs commissioned by a luxury brand, which used these drawings on its website(s) and stores, in order to promote its luxury products … even after the termination date of the license!

      So what can a licensor do, when he or she notices that the licensee has, or is, breaching the terms of the license agreement by overrunning its duration? How to remedy a breach of license which term is overran?

      First and foremost, the licensor must gather as much pieces of evidence as possible of such breach of the term of the license agreement, by the licensee. For example, the music label, licensor, may reach out to French neighbouring rights collecting societies and ask for the royalties statements for the French distributor, ex-licensee, up-to-date, in order to have some indisputable evidence that this ex-licensee kept on collecting the neighbouring rights royalties on the sound recordings which were the subject of the license, even after the termination date of this license. The French artist, whose designs and drawings kept on being used by the luxury brand after the term of his license with this brand expired, instructed our law firm to liaise with a French bailiff, in order to have this bailiff execute a detailed report of copyright infringement on internet, by taking snapshots of the webpages of this brand’s website displaying his drawings and designs.

      These pieces of evidence are indispensable, in order to prove the IPR infringement (since the license expired), to show it to the ex-licensee, if necessary, and to use it in any future lawsuit for IPR infringement lodged with a local court, if and when the ex-licensee refuses to settle further to receiving the ex-licensor’s letter before court action.

      You will have guessed by now that, indeed, once the ex-licensor has gathered as much conclusive evidence as possible that his or her IPR is being infringed by the ex-licensee because the latter keeps on using such IPR outside the contractual framework of the now-expired license agreement, the second stage is to instruct counsel, in the country where such IPR infringement is taking place, and have such counsel send a robust, cordial yet frank letter before court action to the ex-licensor, asking:

      • for the immediate cessation of any IPR infringement act, by stopping using the IPR at once;
      • for the evidence of, and information about, turnover and sales, relating to the sale of products and/or services, generated thanks to the use of the IPR beyond the term of the expired license, and
      • for the restitution of all those revenues generated by the sale of those products and/or services, generated thanks to the use of the IPR beyond the term of the expired license, as well as accrued late payment interests at the statutory interest rate,

      within a short deadline (usually, no longer than 14 days).

      Here, the ex-licensee has an option: either it decides to cave in and avoid a tarnished reputation by immediately complying with the terms of the ex-licensor’s letter before court action, or it may decide to act as a blowhard and ignore the requests set out in this letter. The first approach is favoured by anglo-saxon companies, while the second option is usual among French, and all other Mediterranean, ex-licensees.

      If the dispute may be resolved out-of-court, a settlement agreement will be drafted, negotiated and finalised, by the lawyers advising the ex-licensor and the ex-licensee, which will provide for the restitution of a very clearly defined sum of money, representing the sales generated by the ex-licensee during the period in which it overran the use of the litigious IPR.

      If the dispute cannot be resolved out-of-court, then the ex-licensor will have no other option left than to lodge a lawsuit for IPR infringement against the ex-licensee, which – provided the former has strong evidence of such breach of licensing agreement – it will won.

      Once the slate is clean again, i.e. after the ex-licensee has paid damages or restituted sums to the ex-licensor with respect to its use of the IPR after the termination date of the first license agreement, then ex-licensor and the ex-licensee may decide to resume doing business together. Here, I strongly advise that the parties draft a transparent, clear and straightforward new license agreement, which clearly sets out the termination date of this new future license, and foreseeable consequences in case the future licensee keeps on using the IPR beyond the end of such termination date. Using the services of either in-house lawyer or external counsel is very much advisable, in this instance, in order to avoid a repeat of the messy and damaging business situation which occured in the first place, between the licensor and the licensee.



      Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




        Your name (required)

        Your email (required)

        Subject

        Your message

        captcha


        Leave a response »

        Do you need to put in place an escrow agreement with respect to the software and/or source code that you license?

        Crefovi : 22/06/2020 4:01 pm : Antitrust & competition, Articles, Copyright litigation, Emerging companies, Gaming, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Insolvency & workouts, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Litigation & dispute resolution, Outsourcing, Product liability, Technology transactions

        In this digital and technological corporate world, having a plan B in case your software or computer program license goes wrong is a must. Can a customer successfully leverage its position, by entering into an escrow agreement with the licensor? How does the source code escrow work, anyway? When can the source escrow be released to the licensee?

        escrow agreement1. What is software escrow and source code escrow?

        1.1. What is source code?

        Source code is the version of software as it is originally written (i.e. typed into a computer) by a human in plain text (i.e. human readable alphanumeric characters), according to the Linux Information Project.

        The notion of source code may also be taken more broadly, to include machine code and notations in graphical languages, neither of which are textual in nature.

        For example, during a presentation to peers or potential clients, the software creator may ascertain from the outset that, ‟for the purpose of clarity, ‟source code” is taken to mean any fully executable description of a software system. It is therefore construed to include machine code, very high level languages and executable graphical representations of systems”.

        Often, there are several steps of program translation or minification (i.e. the process of removing all unnecessary characters from the source code of interpreted programming languages or markup languages, without changing its functionality) between the original source code typed by a human and an executable program.

        Source code is primarily used as input to the process that produces an executable computer programme (i.e. it is compiled or interpreted). Hence, computer programmers often find it useful to review existing source code to learn about programming techniques. So much so, that sharing of source code between developers is frequently cited as a contributing factor to the maturation of their programming skills.

        Moreover, porting software to other computer platforms is usually prohibitively difficult – if not impossible – without source code.

        1.2. Legal status of software, computer programs and source code

        In the United Kingdom, section 3 (Literary, dramatic and musical works) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‟CDPA 1988”) provides that among works which are protected by copyright, are ‟computer programs”, ‟preparatory design material for a computer program” and ‟databases” (i.e. collections of independent works, data or other materials which are arranged in a systematic or methodical way and are individually accessible by electronic or other means).

        Section 3A of the CDPA 1988 provides that the standard for copyright protection is higher, for databases, than for other ‟literary works”, since they must be original (i.e. by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database, the database constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation). Since the CDPA 1988 has no equivalent provision for computer programs, it is common knowledge that the provisions of section 3A of the CDPA 1988, relating to originality, apply to both databases and computer programs.

        Moreover, the European Directive on the legal protection of databases (Directive 96/9/EC) and the Computer Directive (Directive 91/250/EEC) confirm these higher standards of originality for computer programs and databases, in the sense that they are the author’s own intellectual creation. This is a higher standard of originality than ‟skill, labour and judgment”.

        Article L112-2 of the French intellectual property code (‟IPC”) provides that softwares, including preliminary conception work, are deemed to be ‘works from the mind’ protected by copyright. That copyright protection includes source code.

        Both in France and the UK, the duration of copyright for software and computer programs is 70 years after the death of the author or, if the author is a legal entity, from the date on which the software was made public.

        Copyright is acquired automatically in France and the UK, upon creation of the software or computer program, without any need for registration of such intellectual property right.

        Both under English and French law, computer programs are regarded as not protectable via other registered intellectual property rights, such as patents. Indeed, section 1(2) (c) of the Patents Act 1977 (‟PA 1977”) lists computer programs among the things that are not regarded as being inventions “as such”. Article L611-10 of the IPC does the same in France.

        1.3. Software escrow / source code escrow

        Since authors of software and computer programs – which include source code – own the copyright to their work, they can licence these works. Indeed, the author has the right to grant customers and users of his software some of his exclusive rights in form of software licensing.

        While some softwares are ‟open source”, i.e. free to use, distribute, modify and study, most softwares are ‟proprietary”, i.e. privately owned, restricted and, sometimes, kept secret.

        For proprietary software, the only way for a user to have lawful access to it is by obtaining a license to use from its author.

        When some very large sums of money are exchanged, between the licensor (i.e. the author of the software and source code) and its licensees (i.e. the users of such software and source code), a precautionary measure may be required by the latter: software escrow.

        It is the deposit of software source code with a third-party escrow agent, such as Iron Mountain or SES. The source code is securely administered by a trusted, neutral third party to protect the developer’s intellectual property, while at the same time keeping a copy safe for the licensees in case anything happens, such as the licensor no longer being able to support the software or going into bankruptcy. If that situation materialises, the licensees request a release of the source code from the escrow account and are able to keep their businesses up and running. This escrow solution effectively gives the licensee control of the source code and options to move forward.

        2. How do you put source code escrow in place?

        Many organisations have a standing policy to require software developers to escrow source code of products the organisations are licensing.

        Therefore, alongside the licensing agreement to use the computer program, in-house or external lawyers of the licensees also negotiate the terms of an escrow agreement pursuant to which the source code of that computer program will be put in escrow with a trusted third party.

        3. Is it worth requesting source code escrow alongside a software license?

        Only a small percentage of escrows are ever released: Iron Mountain, the dominant escrow agent in the USA, has thousands of escrow accounts and more than 45,000 customers worldwide that have stored their software and source code with them. Over the 10-year period from 1990 to 1999, Iron Mountain released 96 escrow accounts, less than 10 per year.

        Just as well, because escrow agreements are entered into as a kind of insurance policy, only to be used in case something goes very wrong at the licensor’s company, which triggers one of the release events (insolvency, case of force majeure, death of the computer developer, etc.).

        However, one valid cons is that most escrowed source code is defective: often, upon release, source code fails to provide adequate protection because it is outdated, defective or fails to meet the licensee’s needs. According to Iron Mountain again, 97.4 percent of all analysed escrow material deposits have been found incomplete and 74 percent have required additional input from developers to be compiled. This is a valid point and licensees of the software, who insist on getting an escrow agreement as well, must insert some clauses in the escrow agreement whereby the escrowed source code is tested on a very regular basis by both the licensee and the licensor, in order to ensure that such escrowed source code will be usable as soon as one ‟release event”, set out in the escrow agreement, materialises. The licensor should have an obligation of result to maintain the escrowed source code up-to-date and fully operational, throughout the duration of the escrow agreement.

        Another point of caution is that licensees may lack the expertise to use the released source code. Even if the licensor has been diligent and the released source code is properly updated, well-documented and fully operational, most licensees lack the technical resources or capability to utilise the source code upon release. The licensees may work around this problem by either hiring an engineer who has the technical knowledge to make the most of that released source code (bearing in mind that most software licensing agreements bar licensees from poaching licensor’s employees during the term of the license) or instructing a third-party software company. The best and most economical approach is to be as autonomous as possible, as a licensee, by developing in-house expertise on the workings of the software, and its source code, even before one of the release events materialises.

        Another identified problem is that software licensors may prevent the timely release of the escrowed source code by imposing some unilateral conditions to the release, such as the vendor having to provide its written prior approval before the source code is released by the escrow agent, upon the materialisation of a release event. Additionally, many escrow agreements require parties to participate in lengthy alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as arbitration or mediation, in the event of a dispute relating to the release of the source code. A commonly disputed issue is whether a release event actually occurred, even when the software licensor has gone into bankruptcy! The long delay and expensive legal battle needed to obtain the source code release, may become very heavy burdens for a licensee, compounded by the difficulty to keep the licensee’s computer program and software working – as the licensor, and its technical support, have faded away. In order to avoid such delays and complications in the release of the escrowed source code, the terms of the escrow agreement must initially be reviewed, and negotiated, by an IT lawyer experienced in this area, so that all clauses are watertight and can be executed immediately and in a smooth manner, upon the occurrence of a release event.

        Another cost consideration is that the expenses related to the opening and maintenance of an escrow agreement are high, and typically borne by the licensee. In addition to the fees paid to the escrow agent, the customer will often incur significant legal expenses related to the drafting and negotiation of the escrow agreement, as explained above. Software licensors being really resistant to providing their proprietary source code to anyone, escrow agreements are often subjects of long negotiations, before they are signed. However, while doing a costs/benefits analysis of getting the source code escrow, the licensee must assess how much it would cost, in case a release event occurred (bankruptcy of the licensor, case of force majeure, etc) but no prior software escrow had been put in place. If the licensee has made a considerable investment in the software, the cost to protect this asset via an escrow agreement may be trivial.

        Some companies say that, since they now rely on Software-as-a-Service solutions (‟SaaS”) for some of their IT needs and functionalities, there is no need for software escrow because the SaaS relies on a cloud-based system. However, SaaS implies that you need to think about both the software and your company’s data, which is indeed stored on the cloud – which adds a level of complexity. Since most SaaS provider’s business continuity/disaster recovery plans do not extend to a company’s application and data, some new insurance products have entered the market, combining both the source code escrow and disaster recovery and risk management solution. For example, Iron Mountain markets its SaaSProtect Solutions for business continuity.

        To conclude, licensees need to conduct a costs/benefits analysis of having an escrow agreement in place, alongside the licensing agreement of their major software applications, in respect of each computer program which is perceived as absolutely paramount to the economic survival, and business continuity, of the licensees. Once they have balanced out the pros and cons of putting in place escrow agreements, they need to draft a list of their essential ‟wants” to be set out in each escrow agreement (for example, a detailed list of the release events which would trigger the release of source code to the licensee, the quarterly obligation borne by the licensor to maintain the source code in up-to-date form and working order, the secondment of a highly qualified computer programmer employee of the licensor to the offices of the licensee, on a full-time or part-time basis, in order to train in-house IT staff about the intricacies of the software and its source code) and then pass on such list to their instructed lawyer – who should be an IT expert lawyer, seasoned in reviewing and negotiating escrow agreements – for his or her review and constructive criticism and feedback. Once the licensees have agreed an ‟escrow insurance plan” strategy internally, and then with their counsel, they need to contact the licensor, its management and legal team, and circulate to them a term sheet of the future escrow agreement, in order to kick off the negotiation of the escrow agreement.

        An escrow agreement is, and should remain, an insurance policy for the licensee, as long as it – in coordination with its legal counsel – has paved the way to a successful and well thought-out escrow rescue plan. This way, the user of the software will avoid all the pitfalls of poorly understood and drafted escrow agreements and source codes, for the present and future.



        Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




          Your name (required)

          Your email (required)

          Subject

          Your message

          captcha


          Leave a response »

          Fashion law in France: a 2020 overview

          Crefovi : 15/04/2020 8:00 am : Antitrust & competition, Articles, Banking & finance, Capital markets, Consumer goods & retail, Copyright litigation, Emerging companies, Employment, compensation & benefits, Fashion law, Fashion lawyers, Hostile takeovers, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Law of luxury goods, Litigation & dispute resolution, Mergers & acquisitions, Private equity & private equity finance, Product liability, Tax, Trademark litigation, Unsolicited bids

          Since its inception in 2003, the law of luxury goods and fashion law have evolved, matured, and become institutionalised as a standalone area of specialisation in the legal profession. Here is Crefovi’s 2020 status update for fashion law in France, detailing each legal practice area relevant to such creative industry.

          Fashion law in France1. Market spotlight & state of the market

          1 | What is the current state of the luxury fashion market in your jurisdiction?

          France is the number one player worldwide in the luxury fashion sector, as it is home to three major luxury goods conglomerates, namely:

          • LVMH Moet Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SE (full year (‟FY”) 2017 luxury goods sales US$27.995 billion and the number one luxury goods company by sales FY2017, with a selection of luxury brands, such as: Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Fendi, Bulgari, Loro Piana, Emilio Pucci, Acqua di Parma, Loewe, Marc Jacobs, TAG Heuer, Benefit Cosmetics);

          • Kering SA (FY2017 luxury goods sales US$12.168 billion and the number four luxury goods company by sales FY2017, with a selection of luxury brands, such as: Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Brioni, Pomellato, Girard-Perregaux, Ulysse Nardin); and

          • L’Oreal Luxe (FY2017 luxury goods sales estimate US$9.549 billion and the number seven luxury goods company by sales FY2017, with a selection of luxury brands, such as: Lancome, Kiehl’s, Urban Decay, Biotherm, IT cosmetics).

          2. Manufacture and distribution

          2.1. Manufacture and supply chain

          2 | What legal framework governs the development, manufacture and supply chain for fashion goods? What are the usual contractual arrangements for these relationships?

          The French law on duty of vigilance of parent and outsourcing companies, dated 27 March 2017 (article L 225-102-4 inserted in the French commercial code), is the French response to the UK Modern Slavery Act and the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act.

          This is a due diligence measure that requires large French companies to create and implement a ‟vigilance plan” aimed at identifying and preventing potential human rights violations – including those associated with subsidiaries and supply chain members.

          The law applies to any company headquartered in France that has (i) 5,000 or more employees, including employees of any French subsidiaries; or (ii) 10,000 or more employees, including French and foreign subsidiaries.

          The law requires that the vigilance plan address activities by the company’s subcontractors and suppliers (‟supply chain entities”), where the company maintains an ongoing business relationship with these supply chain entities, and such activities involve its business relationship. The vigilance plan, as well as the minutes related to its implementation, must be made available to the public.

          As of February 2019, the enforceability of this new French law was mitigated, at best. Certain corporations had still not published a vigilance plan regardless of their legal obligation to do so (eg, Lactalis, Credit Agricole, Zara or H&M). Those that had published vigilance plans merely included them in their chapter on social and environmental responsibility within their company’s annual report. Such vigilance plans were vague and had gaps, the actions and measures were not detailed enough and only very partially addressed the risks mentioned in the risk mapping. There is, therefore, room for improvement.

          The usual contractual arrangements for the relationships relating to the development, manufacture and supply chain for fashion goods in France are standard French law-governed manufacturing agreements or supplier agreements.

          Such contractual arrangements are subject to the French civil code on contract law, and the general regime and proof of obligations, which was reformed in October 2016, thanks to Order No. 2016-131 of 10 February 2016. The order codified principles that had emerged from the case law of French courts, but also created a number of new rules applicable to pre-contractual, and contractual, relationships, such as:

          • new article 1104 of the French civil code, which provides that contracts must be negotiated, concluded and performed in good faith, and failure to comply with such obligation can not only trigger the payment of damages, but also result in the nullification of the contract;

          • new article 1112-1 provides that if a party to the contractual obligations is aware of information, the significance of which would be determinative for the consent of the other party, it must inform such other party thereof if such other party is legitimately unaware of such information, or relies on the first party;

          • new article 1119 provides that general conditions invoked by a party have no effect against the other party, unless they have been made known to such other party and accepted by it. In the event of a ‘battle of the forms’, between two series of general conditions (eg, general sales conditions and general purchase conditions), those conditions that conflict are without effect;

          • new article 1124, which provides that a contract concluded in violation of a unilateral promise, with a third party that knew of the existence thereof, is null and void; and

          • new article 1143 provides that violence exists when a party abusing the state of dependency in which its co-contracting party finds itself, obtains from such co-contracting party an undertaking which such co-contracting party would not have otherwise agreed to in the absence of such constraint, and benefits thereby from a manifestly excessive advantage.

          2.2. Distribution and agency agreements

          3 | What legal framework governs distribution and agency agreements for fashion goods?

          In addition to the reform of the French civil code on contract law and the general regime and proof of obligations explained in question 2 above, distribution and agency agreements for fashion goods need to comply with the following legal framework:

          • European regulation (‟EU”) No. 330/2010 dated 20 April 2010 on the application of article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‟TFEU”), which places limits on restrictions that a supplier could place on a distributor or agent (the ‟Regulation”);

          • article L134-1 of the French commercial code, which sets out what the agency relationship consists of;

          • article L134-12 of of the French commercial code, which sets out that a commercial agent is entitled to a termination payment at the end of the agency agreement;

          • books III and IV, and article L442-6 of the French commercial code, which set out that a relationship between two commercial partners needs to be governed by fairness and which prohibit any strong imbalance between the parties; and

          • the law No. 78-17 dated 6 January 1978 relating to IT, databases and freedom (the ‟French Data Protection Act”) and its implementation decree No. 2005-1309.

          French luxury houses often use selective distribution to sell their products. It is, indeed, the most-used distribution technique for perfumes, cosmetics, leather accessories or even ready-to-wear.

          The Regulation provides for an exemption system to the general prohibition of vertical agreements set out in article 101(1) of the TFEU. The lawfulness of selective distribution agreements is always assessed via the fundamental rules applying to competition law, in particular article 101 of the TFEU.

          Selective distribution systems may qualify for block exemption treatment under the vertical agreements block exemption set out in article 101(3) of the TFEU.

          4 | What are the most commonly used distribution and agency structures for fashion goods, and what contractual terms and provisions usually apply?

          Under French law, it is essential to avoid any confusion between a distribution agreement and an agency agreement.

          French law sets out that a distributor is an independent natural person or legal entity, who buys goods and products from the manufacturer or supplier and resells them to third parties, upon the agreed trading conditions, and at a profit margin set by such distributor.

          A distributor may be appointed for a particular territory, either on an exclusive, or non-exclusive, basis.

          Under French law, there is no statutory compensation for the loss of clientele and business due to the distributor upon expiry or termination of a distribution agreement. However, French case law has recently recognised that some compensation may be due when some major investments had been made by the distributor, on behalf of the manufacturer or supplier, in the designated territory.

          Moreover, there is no statutory notice period to terminate a distribution agreement under French law. However, most distribution agreements set out a three-to-six-month termination notice period. French law sets out a detailed legal framework relating to the role of commercial agent, which is of a ‘public policy’ nature (ie, one cannot opt out from such statutory legal provisions). In particular, commercial agents must be registered as such, on a special list held by the registrar of the competent French commercial court.

          Under French law, not only is it very difficult to terminate a commercial agent (except for proven serious misconduct), but also there is a statutory considerable compensation for the loss of clientele and business that is due to the terminated agent by the manufacturer or supplier.

          Selective distribution is the most commonly used distribution structure for luxury goods in France, as explained in question 3.

          Such selective distribution systems of luxury products can escape the qualification of anticompetitive agreements, pursuant to article 101(3) of the TFEU (individual and block exemption). However, in 2011, the European Court of Justice (‟ECJ”) held that the selective distribution agreement that has as its object the restriction of passive sales to online end-users outside of the dealer’s area excluded the application of the block exemption in its decision in Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence and Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi. The ECJ ruled that it was down to the French courts to determine whether an individual exemption may benefit such selective distribution agreement imposed by French company Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS to its distributors. To conclude, it is clear that the ECJ set out that the prohibition of internet sales, in a distribution agreement, constitutes an anticompetitive restriction.

          2.3. Import and export

          5 | Do any special import and export rules and restrictions apply to fashion goods?

          A French company, upon incorporation, will be provided with the following numbers by the French authorities:

          • an intra-community VAT number, provided to all companies incorporated in a EU member state;

          • a SIRET number, which is a unique French business identification number; and

          • an EORI number, which is assigned to importers and exporters by the French tax authorities, and is used in the process of customs entry declaration and customs clearance for both import and export shipments, travelling to and from the EU and countries outside the EU.

          Fashion and luxury products manufactured outside of the EU, and brought into the EU, will be deemed to be imports, by French customs authorities.

          In case such fashion and luxury products are transferred from France, or another member state of the EU, to a third party country in the rest of the world (outside of the EU), then these products will be deemed to be exports by French customs authorities.

          For imports of fashion and luxury products, (ie, when they enter the EU), the French importer will have to pay some customs duties or other taxes when it imports these products from a third-party country to France or another member state of the EU.

          Such customs duties are the same in each of the 27 member states of the EU because they are set by EU institutions. The importer can compute such customs duties by accessing the RITA encyclopedia, which sets out the integrated referential to an automated tarif, for each luxury and fashion product.

          Through rather complex manipulations on the RITA encyclopedia, the importer can find out the relevant customs duties, additional taxes and any other fees (such as anti-dumping rights) payable for each type of fashion product and other imported merchandise.

          For example, if you are importing a man’s shirt in France or any other EU member state from China, there will be a 12 percent customs duty to pay (the ‟Customs duty”).

          Such Customs duty will be payable on the price paid to the Chinese manufacturer for the man’s shirt in China plus all transportation costs from China to France (or another EU member state).

          Therefore, if the man’s shirt has a manufacturing price (set out on the invoice of the Chinese manufacturer) of €100, and if there are €50 of transportation costs, the customs value basis will be €150 and the customs duty amount will be €18 (€150 multiplied by 12 per cent).

          The computation of Customs duties, additional taxes and other charges being such a complicated and specialised area, and the filling out of customs declarations being done only on the Delta software that is accessible only to legal entities that have received an authorisation to use such software, most EU companies that sell fashion and luxury goods use the services of registered customs representatives, also called customs brokers or customs agents.

          For exports of fashion and luxury products (ie, when they leave the EU to go to a third party in the rest of the world), a French company will not have to pay any Customs duties or other taxes. However, it is also important to check whether such third-party country will charge the French exporter some Customs duties, additional taxes and other charges, upon the luxury and fashion products entering its territory.

          In addition, it is important for the importers to double check whether the EU, and consequently France, may be giving preferential treatment to fashion and luxury products imported from certain developing countries, which names are set out on the list entitled ‟Système Généralisé de Préférence” (‟SPG”). SPG is a programme of trade preferences for goods coming from developing countries, such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc. It may be financially more advantageous to manufacture luxury and fashion products in the countries that are included on the SPG list, to ensure that lower tariffs and Customs duties will apply when importing these products to the EU.

          Finally, and especially if the goods are in the luxury bracket, it may be possible to put a ‟Made in France” label on them, provided that such products were assembled in France.

          2.4. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability

          6 | What are the requirements and disclosure obligations in relation to corporate social responsibility and sustainability for fashion and luxury brands in your jurisdiction? What due diligence in this regard is advised or required?

          As explained in question 2 above, the French law on duty of vigilance for parent and outsourcing companies, dated 27 March 2017 (article L 225-102-4 inserted in the French commercial code) is the legal framework that applies to disclosure obligations in relation to corporate social responsibility and sustainability for fashion and luxury brands in France.

          The vigilance plan made compulsory by such French law must set out a detailed risk mapping stating the risks for third parties (ie, employees, the general population) and the environment. French companies subject to this law must then publish their risk mapping, explicitly and clearly stating the serious risks and severe impacts on health and safety of individuals and on the environment. In particular, the vigilance plan should provide detailed lists of risks for each type of activity, product and service.

          It is these substantial risks (ie, negative impacts on third parties and the environment deriving from general activities) on which vigilance must be exercised and which the plan must cover. Moreover, the vigilance plan must include the evaluated severity criteria regarding the level, size and reversible or irreversible nature of the impacts, or the probability of the risk. This prioritisation should allow the French company to structure how it implements its measures to resolve the impacts or risks of impact.

          The vigilance plan, as well as the minutes related to its implementation, must be made available to the public.

          The French law on duty of vigilance of parent and outsourcing companies sets out some stringent enforcement mechanisms. Any person with a demonstrable interest may demand that a company comply with the due diligence requirements (i.e. creating and implementing a vigilance plan) and, if the French company fails to comply, a court may fine the offending company up to €10 million, depending on the severity of the breach and other circumstances. Additionally, if the activities of a French company – or the activities of its supply chain entities – cause harm that could have been avoided by implementing its vigilance plan, the size of the fine can be trebled (up to €30 million), depending on the severity and circumstances of the breach and the damage caused, and the company can be ordered to pay damages to the victims.

          7 | What occupational health and safety laws should fashion companies be aware of across their supply chains?

          As set out above in our answers to the questions set out in sub-paragraphs 2.2. and 2.4. above, the French law on duty of vigilance of parent and outsourcing companies, dated 27 March 2017 (article L 225-102-4 inserted in the French commercial code) is the legal framework that applies to disclosure obligations in relation to occupational health and safety across their supply chains, for fashion and luxury brands in France.

          In addition, the main legislation on occupational health and safety in France is set out in Part IV of the French labour code, entitled ‟Health and Safety at Work”. Health and safety at work legislation is supplemented by other parts of this labour code (ie, work time legislation, daily rest period, respect of fundamental freedoms, bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, execution in good faith of the employment agreement, work council competencies, employee delegates’ abilities).

          Collective bargaining is also a source of health and safety legislation (via inter-branch agreements, branch agreements, company-level agreements) in France. These collective agreements regulate employer versus employee relationships, in particular as far as occupation health and safety are concerned.

          3. Online retail

          3.1. Launch

          8 | What legal framework governs the launch of an online fashion marketplace or store?

          The Hamon law dated 17 March 2014 (‟Hamon law”) transposes the provisions of the Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, which aims at achieving a real business-to-consumer internal market, striking the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of businesses. This law strengthened pre-contractual information requirements, in relation to:

          • the general duty to give information that applies to any sales of goods or services agreement entered into on a business-to- consumer basis (for on-premises sales, distance sales and off-premises sales); and

          • information specific to distance contracts about the existence of a withdrawal right.

          Thanks to this law, the withdrawal period has been extended from 7 to 14 days. It introduced the use of a standard form that can be used by consumers to exercise their withdrawal rights. Such form must be made available to consumers online or sent to them before the contract is entered into. If a consumer exercises this right, the business must refund the consumer for all amounts paid, including delivery costs, within a period of 14 calendar days.

          Also, the General Data Protection Regulation (‟GDPR”) and the French Data Protection Act with its implementation decree No. 2005- 1309, govern the launch of any online fashion marketplace or store in France. This is because e-commerce stores must have a data privacy policy, as well as a cookies policy, as well as some general terms and conditions of use of their e-commerce website, as well as some general terms and conditions of sale on their e-commerce website in place, which all comply with the GDPR and the French Data Protection Act. These online marketplaces must also appoint a data protection officer, to ensure that they comply with such data protection legal framework and so that the Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertes (‟CNIL”, the French data protection authority) has a point of contact within the French online fashion marketplace or store.

          With respect to the cookies policy, e-commerce stores must comply with the cookies and other tracking devices guidelines published by the CNIL in July 2019.

          3.2. Sourcing and distribution

          9 | How does e-commerce implicate retailers’ sourcing and distribution arrangements (or other contractual arrangements) in your jurisdiction?

          As explained in our answer to question 4, luxury and fashion brands (manufacturers, suppliers) cannot ban their distributors from selling their products online, through e-commerce, since this would be a competition law breach under article 101 of the TFEU, entitled an anticompetitive restriction.

          However, luxury and fashion brands may impose some criteria and conditions for their distributors to be able to sell their products online, in order to preserve the luxury aura and prestige of their products sold online, via the terms of their distribution agreements.

          3.3. Terms and conditions

          10 | What special considerations would you take into account when drafting online terms and conditions for customers when launching an e-commerce website in your jurisdiction?

          As explained in our answer to question 8, these terms and conditions for customers of an e-commerce website must comply with the GDPR, the French Data Protection Act and the cookies and other tracking devices guidelines from the CNIL.

          Therefore, those terms must comply with the following principles:

          • privacy by design, which means that fashion and luxury businesses must take a proactive and preventive approach in relation to the protection of privacy and personal data;

          • accountability, which means that data controllers, such as an e-commerce website, as well as its data processors, must take appropriate legal, organisational and technical measures allowing them to comply with the GDPR. They must be able to demonstrate the execution of such measures to the CNIL;

          • privacy impact assessment, which means that an e-commerce business must execute an analysis relating to the protection of personal data, on its data assets, to track and map risks inherent to each data process and treatment put in place, according to their plausibility and seriousness;

          • a data protection officer must be appointed, to ensure the compliance of treatment of personal data by fashion businesses whose data treatments present a strong risk of breach of privacy;

          • profiling, which is an automated processing of personal data allowing the construction of complex information about a particular person, such as his or her preferences, productivity at work and whereabouts. This type of data processing may constitute a risk to civil liberties; therefore, online businesses doing profiling must limit their risks and guarantee the rights of individuals subjected to such profiling, in particular by allowing them to request human intervention or contest the automated decision; and

          • right to be forgotten, which allows an individual to avoid that information about his or her past that interferes with their current, actual life. In the digital world, that right encompasses the right to erasure, as well as the right to dereferencing.

          3.4. Tax

          11 | Are online sales taxed differently than sales in retail stores in your jurisdiction?

          No, online sales are not taxed differently than sales executed in brick-and- mortar stores. They are all subjected to a 20 percent VAT rate, which is the standard VAT rate in France, and which is applicable on all fashion and luxury products.

          4. Intellectual property

          4.1. Design protection

          12 | Which IP rights are applicable to fashion designs? What rules and procedures apply to obtaining protection?

          French fashion designs are usually protected via the registration of a design right in France, with the Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (‟INPI”). Articles L 512-1 et seq and R 511-1 et seq of the French intellectual property code govern the design application and registration process.

          Of course, this French design protection applies in addition to any registered or unregistered community design right that may exist.

          To qualify for protection through the French design right, the design must be novel and have individual character. Functional forms, as well as designs in breach of public policy or morality, are excluded from protection.

          French fashion designs are protected by copyright, as long as they meet the originality criteria. Indeed, article L 112-2 14 of the French intellectual property code provides that ‟the creations of the seasonal industries of garments and dresses” fall within the remit of copyright, as ‟works of the mind”.

          Copyright being an unregistrable intellectual property right in France, the existence of copyright on fashion products is often proven via the filing of an ‟enveloppe SOLEAU” with INPI, or by keeping all prototypes, drawings and research documents on file, to be able to prove the date on which such copyright arose.

          Indeed, under the traditional principle of unity of art, a creation can be protected by copyright and design law. Recent case law distinguishes between these IP rights, by stating that the originality required for copyright protection differs from the individual character required for design protection, and that both rights do not necessarily overlap.

          In the same way, the scope of copyright protection is determined by the reproduction of the creation’s main features; while in design law the same overall visual impression on the informed user is required.

          As far as the ownership of commissioned works is concerned, the default regime in France is that both an independent creator (i.e. a fashion freelancer, contractor, creative director) and an employee of any French fashion house is automatically deemed to be the lawful owner of all intellectual property rights on a fashion and luxury item that he or she has created during the course of his or her service or employment. Therefore, it is essential in all French law-governed service providers agreements entered into with third-party consultants, and in all French law-governed employment agreements entered into with employees, to set out that an automatic and irrevocable assignment of all intellectual property rights in any fashion creation will always occur, upon creation.

          13 | What difficulties arise in obtaining IP protection for fashion goods?

          France enjoys the most extensive and longstanding intellectual property rights in connection with fashion designs. As explained in our answer to question 12, copyright protection is extended to any original work of the mind.

          Even spare parts are protectable under French design law, which means that a design protecting only a spare part (eg, a bag clip) is valid without taking into consideration the product as a whole (ie, the bag).

          Therefore, IP protection for fashion goods is very achievable in France, and it is important for applicants to systematically register their designs (not rely simply on copyright law) to be on the safe side.

          4.2. Brand protection

          14 | How are luxury and fashion brands legally protected in your jurisdiction?

          Luxury and fashion brands are usually protected by a French trade mark registration filed with INPI.

          French trade marks are governed mainly by law 1991-7, which implements the EU first council directive related to trade marks (89/104/EEC) and is codified in the French intellectual property code. This code was amended several times, in particular by Law 2007-1544, which implements the EU IP rights enforcement directive (2004/48/EC).

          Ownership of a trade mark is acquired through registration, except for well-known trademarks within the meaning of article 6 bis of the Paris convention for the protection of industrial property dated 20 March 1883. Such unregistered well-known trademarks may be protected under French law if an unauthorised use of the trade mark by a third party is likely to cause damage to the trade mark owner or such use constitutes an unjustified exploitation of the trade mark.

          To be registered as a trademark, a sign must be:

          • represented in a way that allows any person to determine precisely and clearly the subject-matter of the trade mark protection granted to its owner;

          • distinctive;

          • not deceptive;

          • lawful; and

          • available.

          French trademarks, registered with INPI, may coincide with EU trademarks (filed with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‟EUIPO”)) and international trademarks (filed with the Word Intellectual Property Office (‟WIPO”), through the Madrid protocol).

          Under French law, unauthorised use of a trade mark on the internet also constitutes trade mark infringement. The rights holder may sue those that unlawfully use its trade mark on the ground of trade mark infringement or unfair competition.

          Moreover, luxury and fashion brands are also protected by domain names, which may be purchased from domain name registrars for a limited period of time on a regular basis.

          French domain names finishing in .fr can only be purchased for one year, once a year, pursuant to the regulations of the French registry for .fr top level domains, Afnic.

          It is the responsibility of the person purchasing, or using, the domain name in .fr to ensure that he or she does not breach any third party rights by doing so.

          A dispute resolution procedure called Syreli is available for disputes relating to .fr domains, along with judiciary actions. This procedure is managed by Afnic and decisions are issued within two months from receipt of the complaint.

          With online ransom, a proliferation of websites being used for counterfeit sales, fraud, phishing and other forms of online trade mark abuse, most French luxury and fashion companies take the management and enforcement of domain name portfolios very seriously.

          With the advent of new generic top-level domains (generic top-level domains or ‟gTLDs”), it is now an essential strategy for all French luxury and fashion houses to buy and hold onto all available gTLDs relating to fashion and luxury (eg, .luxury, .fashion, .luxe).

          4.3. Licensing

          15 | What rules, restrictions and best practices apply to IP licensing in the fashion industry?

          French IP rights may be assigned, licensed or pledged. The French intellectual property code refers to licences over trade marks, patents, designs and models, as well as databases. With respect to copyright, this code only refers to the assignment of the patrimonial rights of the author (ie, representation right and reproduction right) in its article L122-7. In practice, copyright licences often occur, especially over software.

          When it involves French design rights, the corresponding deed, contract or judgment must be recorded in the French Design register, to be enforceable against third parties. The documents must be in French (or a translation must be provided). Tax will be incurred only up to the 10th design, in a recordal request filed with INPI. For community designs, recordal must be made with EUIPO. For the French designation of an international design, recordal must be requested through WIPO for all or part of the designation.

          When it involves French trade marks, the corresponding deed, contract or judgment should be recorded in the INPI French trade mark register, especially for evidentiary and opposability purposes, for the licensee to be able to act in infringement litigation and for such deed, contract or judgment to be enforceable against third parties. Again, the copy or abstract of the deed, or agreement, setting out the change in ownership or use of the trade marks should be in French (or a French translation be provided).

          Of course, copyright of fashion products does not have to be recorded in any French register, as there is no registration requirement for French copyright. However, best practice is for the parties to the deed, agreement or judgment to keep, on record, for the duration of the copyright (70 years after the death of the creator of the copyright) such documents, so that the copyright assignment, pledge or licence may be enforceable against third parties.

          Fashion brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, Benetton and Ermenegildo Zegna use franchising to access new markets, increase their online presence and develop flagship stores. Franchise agreements generally include a trade mark, trade name or service mark licence, as well as the transfer of knowhow by the franchisor, to the franchisee. On this note, knowhow licences exist in France, although knowhow does not constitute a proprietary right benefiting from specific protection under the French intellectual property code.

          A licensor must make some pre-contractual disclosure to prospective licensees, pursuant to article L330-3 of the French commercial code, when he or she makes available to another person a trade name or a trademark, and requires from such other person an exclusivity undertaking with respect to such activity. The precontractual information must be disclosed in a document provided at least 20 days prior to the signature of the licence agreement. Such document must contain truthful information allowing the licensee to commit to the contractual relationship in full knowledge of the facts.

          A licensing relationship governed by French law must comply with the general contract law principles, including the negotiation, conclusion and performance of contracts in good faith (article 1104 of the French civil code). This statutory legal provision implies an obligation on each party of loyalty, cooperation and consistency. In case of breach of this good faith principle, the licence may be terminated and damages potentially awarded.

          4.4. Enforcement

          16 | What options do rights holders have when enforcing their IP rights? Are there options for protecting IP rights through enforcement at the borders of your jurisdiction?

          Lawsuits involving the infringement or validity of a French design, or the French designation of an international design, may be lodged with one of the 10 competent courts of first instance (Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nanterre, Nancy, Paris, Rennes, Strasbourg and Fort-de-France).

          Lawsuits involving the infringement, in France, of a registered or unregistered community design may be lodged only with the Paris court of first instance. An invalidity action against a community design may only be brought before EUIPO. However, invalidity may be claimed as a defence in an infringement action brought before the Paris tribunal.

          The scope of protection for the design is determined exclusively by the various filed views, on the design registration, irrespective of actual use. Therefore, applicants should pay great care to those views, when filing a design application, so as to anticipate the interpretation made by the judiciary tribunal.

          Infringement is identified when a third-party design produces, on the informed observer, the same overall visual impression as the claimant’s design.

          The infringement lawsuit may be lodged by the design owner, or the duly recorded exclusive licensee.

          The claimant will be indemnified for lost profits, with the court taking into account: (i) the scope of the infringement; (ii) the proportion of actual business lost by the claimant; and (iii) the claimant’s profit margin for the retail of each unit.

          Damages may also be awarded for the dilution or depreciation of a design.

          As far as trademarks are concerned, lawsuits may be lodged before the 10 above-mentioned competent courts at first instance if they are French trademarks or the French designation of an international trademark. Lawsuits relating to the infringement of EU trade marks may only be lodged with the Paris judiciary tribunal.

          Such infringement proceedings may be lodged by either the trademark owner or the exclusive licensee, provided that the licence was recorded in the trademark register.

          To determine trademark infringement, the judiciary tribunal will assess: (i) the similarity of the conflicting trademarks, on the basis of visual, phonetic and intellectual criteria; and (ii) the similarity of the goods or services, bearing such trademarks, concerned. Such trademark infringement may be evidenced by any means.

          To secure evidence of the infringement, and to obtain any information related to it, rights holders may ask, and obtain, from the competent judiciary tribunal, an order to carry out a seizure on the premises where the products that infringe the copyright, trademarks, designs, etc. are located. Such order authorises a bailiff to size the suspected infringing products, or to visit the alleged infringer’s premises to collect evidence of the infringement by taking pictures of the suspected infringing products, or by taking samples. The IP rights holder must lodge a lawsuit against the alleged infringer with the competent judiciary tribunal within 20 working days, or 31 calendar days, whichever is the longer, from the date of the seizure. Otherwise, the seizure may be declared null and void on the request of the alleged infringer, who may also ask for some damages.

          In addition, IP rights holders may also request an ex parte injunction, to prevent an imminent infringement, which is about to happen, or any further infringement, to the competent judiciary tribunal.

          Infringement action, for all IP rights, must be brought within three years of the infringement. There is one exception, for copyright, which statute of limitations is five years from the date on which the copyright owner was made aware, or should have been aware, of such copyright infringement.

          There is also an option to protect design rights, copyright, trade marks, patents, etc at French borders, which we often recommend to our fashion and luxury clients. They need to file their IP rights with the Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes, via a French and EU intervention request, and obtain some certifications from those French customs authorities, that such IP rights are now officially registered on the French and EU customs databases. Therefore, all counterfeit products infringing such IP rights registered on these French and EU customs databases, which enter the EU territory via French borders, will be seized by customs at French borders for 10 days. Potentially, provided that certain conditions are met, French customs may permanently destroy all counterfeit products thus seized, after 10 days.

          5. Data privacy and security

          5.1. Legislation

          17 | What data privacy and security laws are most relevant to fashion and luxury companies?

          As explained in questions 8 and 10, fashion and luxury companies must comply with the GDPR, the French Data Protection Act and the cookies and other tracking devices guidelines from the CNIL.

          5.2. Compliance challenges

          18 | What challenges do data privacy and security laws present to luxury and fashion companies and their business models?

          The strict compliance with the GDPR, as well as the amended version of the French Data Protection Act, do present some challenges to luxury and fashion companies and to their business models.

          Indeed, on a factual level, most small and medium-sized enterprises (‟SMEs”) incorporated in France are still not in compliance with the GDPR, the French Data Protection Act and the cookies and other tracking devices guidelines from the CNIL. Most of the time this is because such SMEs do not want to allocate time, money and resources to bringing their business in compliance, while they are fully aware that a serious breach may trigger a fine worth up to 4 per cent of their annual worldwide turnover, or €20 million, whichever is greater.

          Fashion and luxury companies now have to take ownership of, and full responsibility for, the rigorous management and full protection of their data assets. They can no longer rely on a ‘I was not aware this may happen’ defence strategy, which was very often used by fashion companies before the GDPR entered into force when their internal databases or IT systems got hacked or leaked to the public domain (eg, Hudson’s Bay Co, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy’s, Bloomingdales, Adidas, Fashion Nexus, Poshmark). The way to rise up to such challenge, though, is to see the GDPR as an opportunity to take stock of what data your company has, and how you can take most advantage of it. The key tenet of GDPR is that it will give any fashion company the ability to find data in its organisation that is highly sensitive and high value, and ensure that it is protected adequately from risks and data breaches.

          With the GDPR, almost all fashion and luxury businesses worldwide that sell to EU customers (and therefore French customers), either online or in brick and mortar locations, now have a Data Protection Authority (‟DPA”). Businesses will determine their respective DPA with respect to the place of establishment of their management functions as far as supervision of data processing is concerned, which will allow them to identify the main establishment, including when a sole company manages the operations of a whole group. However, the GDPR sets up a one-stop DPA: in case of absence of a specific national legislation, a DPA located in the EU member state in which such organisation has its main or unique establishment will be in charge of controlling its compliance with the GDPR. This unique one-stop DPA will allow companies to substantially save time and money by simplifying processes.

          To favour the European data market and the digital economy, and therefore create a more favourable economic environment, the GDPR reinforces the protection of personal data and civil liberties. This unified regulation will allow businesses to substantially reduce the costs of processing data currently incurred in the 27 member states: organisations will no longer have to comply with multiple national regulations for the collection, harvesting, transfer and storing of data that they use.

          The scope of the GDPR extends to companies that are headquartered outside the EU, but intend to market goods and services into the EU market, as long as they put in place processes and treatments of personal data relating to EU citizens. Following these EU residents on the internet to create some profiles is also covered by the scope of the GDPR. Therefore, EU companies, subject to strict and expensive rules, will not be penalised by international competition on the EU single market. In addition, they may buy some data from non-EU companies, which is compliant with GDPR provisions, therefore making the data market wider.

          The right to portability of data allows EU citizens subjected to data treatment and processing to gather this data in an exploitable format, or to transfer such data to another data controller, if this is technically possible. Compliance with the right to portability is definitely a challenge for fashion and luxury businesses.

          5.3. Innovative technologies

          19 | What data privacy and security concerns must luxury and fashion retailers consider when deploying innovative technologies in association with the marketing of goods and services to consumers?

          Innovative technologies, such as AI and facial recognition, involve automated decision making, including profiling. The GDPR has provisions on:

          • automated individual decision making (making a decision solely by automated means without any human involvement); and

          • profiling (automated processing of personal data to evaluate certain things about an individual), which can be part of an automated decision-making process.

          These provisions, set out in article 22 of the GDPR, should be taken into account by fashion and luxury businesses when deploying innovative technologies. In particular, they must demonstrate that they have a lawful basis to carry out profiling or automated decision making, and document this in their data protection policy. Their Data Protection Impact Assessment should address the risks, before they start using any new automated decision making or profiling. They should tell their customers about the profiling and automated decision making they carry out, what information they use to create the profiles, and where they get this information from. Preferably, they should use anonymised data in their profiling activities.

          5.4. Content personalisation and targeted advertising

          20 | What legal and regulatory challenges must luxury and fashion companies address to support personalisation of online content and targeted advertising based on data-driven inferences regarding consumer behaviour?

          There is a tension, and irrevocable difference, between the GDPR’s push towards more anonymisation of data, and the personalisation of online content and targeted advertising based on data-driven inferences regarding consumer behaviour. This is because the latter needs data that is not anonymous, but, instead, traceable to each individual user.

          Indeed, a fashion and luxury business cannot truly personalise an experience in any channel – a website, a mobile app, through email campaigns, in advertising or events in a store – unless it knows something about that customer, and the luxury business cannot get to know someone digitally unless it collects data about him or her. The GDPR and the increasing concerns around privacy complicate this process.

          However, GDPR does not prohibit fashion businesses from collecting any data on customers and prospects. However, they must do so in compliance with the core GDPR principles set out in question 10.

          6. Advertising and marketing

          6.1. Law and regulation

          21 | What laws, regulations and industry codes are applicable to advertising and marketing communications by luxury and fashion companies?

          Advertising and marketing communications are regulated by the following French laws:

          • law dated 10 January 1991 (‟Evin law”) that prohibits advertising alcohol on French TV channels and in cinemas, and limits such advertising on radio and on the internet;

          • law dated 4 August 1994 (‟Toubon law”) that provides that the French language must be used in all advertising in France; and

          • decree dated 27 March 1992 that provides for specific rules relating to advertising on TV.

          Various legal codes set out some specific rules governing advertising and marketing communications in France, such as: the French consumer code, which prohibits deceptive and misleading advertising, and regulates comparative advertising; or article 9 of the French civil code, which protects individuals’ images and privacy.

          Moreover, there are some industry codes of practice, drafted by the French advertising self-regulation agency (‟ARPP”), which represents advertisers, agencies and the media. These codes of practice set out the expected ethical standards and ensure proper implementation of these standards, through advice and pre-clearance, including providing mandatory advice before the broadcast of all TV advertising.

          The French consumer and competition governmental authority (‟DGCCRF”) has investigative powers in relation to all matters relating to the protection of consumers, including advertising and marketing practices.

          DGCCRF agents are entitled to enter the professional premises of the advertiser, advertising agency or communication agency during business hours to request an immediate review of documents, take copies of these documents, and ask questions.

          The ARPP works with an independent jury that handles complaints against advertisements that violate ARPP standards. Its decisions are published on its website.

          If there is a data breach within a marketing campaign, the CNIL, the French DPA, may fine the culprit data controller (such as an advertiser or an agency) up to €20 million, or 4 percent of their worldwide annual turnover, whichever is the highest.

          6.2. Online marketing and social media

          22 | What particular rules and regulations govern online marketing activities and how are such rules enforced?

          Online marketing activities are regulated in the same manner as activities conducted in the ‟real world”, pursuant to the French digital economy law dated 21 June 2004. However, more specific to the online world, the digital economy law provides that pop-ups, advert banners, and any other types of online adverts must be clearly identified as such and therefore distinguished from non-commercial information.

          Article L121-4-11 of the French consumer code provides that an advertiser who pays for content in the media to promote its products or services must clearly set out that such content is an advertisement, through images or sounds clearly identifiable by consumers. Otherwise, this is a misleading advert or an act of unfair competition.

          The ARPP issued a standard relating to digital adverts, communications carried out by influencers, native advertising, etc emphasising the fact that all such online marketing communications and advertising should be clearly distinguishable as such by consumers.

          7. Product regulation and consumer protection

          7.1. Product safety rules and standards

          23 | What product safety rules and standards apply to luxury and fashion goods?

          French law dated 19 May 1998, which is now set out in articles 1245 et seq of the French civil code, transposes EU directive 85/374/EEC on the liability for defective products in France.

          Alongside this strict civil liability for defective products exists some criminal liability for defective products on the grounds of deceit, involuntary bodily harm, involuntary manslaughter or endangering the lives of others.

          Articles 1245 et seq. of the French civil code apply when a product is considered unsafe. Therefore, a fashion business would be liable for damage caused by a defect in its products, regardless of whether or not the parties concluded a contract. Consequently, these statutory rules apply to any end-user in possession of a fashion product, whether or not such end-user had entered into an agreement with the fashion company.

          Articles 1245 et seq. of the French civil code provide for a strict liability, where the claimant does not need to prove that the ‘producer’ made a mistake, committed an act of negligence or breached a contract. The claimant only has to prove the defect of the product, the damage suffered and the causal link between such defect and such damage.

          A defective product is defined in article 1245-3 of the French civil code, as a product that does not provide the safety that any person is entitled to expect from it, taking into account, in particular, the presentation of such product, the use that can reasonably be expected of it and the date on which it was put on the market.

          Such strict civil liability rules apply to the ‟producer”, a term that may refer to the manufacturer, the distributor, as well as the importer in the EU, of defective products.

          As soon as a risk of a defective product is recognised, the ‟producer” should comply with its duty of care and take all necessary actions to limit harmful consequences, such as a formal public warning, a product recall or the mere withdrawal of such product from the market.

          7.2. Product liability

          24 | What regime governs product liability for luxury and fashion goods? Has there been any notable recent product liability litigation or enforcement action in the sector?

          The regime governing product liability for luxury and fashion goods is described in our answer to question 22.

          The Hamon law introduced class action for French consumers. Consequently, an accredited consumer association may take legal action to obtain compensation for individual economic damages suffered by consumers placed in an identical or similar situation, that result from the purchase of goods or services.

          There has been no notable recent product liability litigation in the fashion and luxury sectors. However, a health class action matter is currently pending before the Paris judiciary tribunal. A pharmaceutical company was sued by 4,000 French individuals because it sold an anti-epileptic drug without providing adequate information relating to the use of such drug during pregnancy. As a result, some French babies were born with health defects because such drug has detrimental effects on foetal development. The judiciary tribunal should hand down its decision about the laboratory’s liability soon.

          8. M&A and competition issues

          8.1. M&A and joint ventures

          25 | Are there any special considerations for M&A or joint venture transactions that companies should bear in mind when preparing, negotiating or entering into a deal in the luxury fashion industry?

          As set out in question 2, the general contract law provisions included in the French civil code, which underwent a major reform in 2016, must be complied with. Therefore, for private M&As, the seller would seek to promote competition between different bidders through a competitive sale process, which conduct must comply with the statutory duty of good faith.

          In France, it is compulsory for the transfer of assets and liabilities from the seller to the buyer to cover all employment contracts, commercial leases and insurance policies pertaining to the business. Except from those, all other assets and liabilities relating to the transferred business may be excluded from the transfer transaction by agreement. Furthermore, the transfer of contracts requires the approval from all relevant counterparties, thus making the prior identification of such contracts in the course of the due diligence an important matter for any prospective buyer.

          In private M&As, there is no restriction to the transfer of shares in a fashion company, a fashion business or assets in France. However, French merger control regulations (in addition to merger control regulations of other EU member states) may require a transaction to be filed with the French competition authority (‟FCA”) if: (i) the gross worldwide total turnover of all the fashion companies involved in the concentration exceeds €150 million; and (ii) the gross total turnover generated individually in France by each of at least two of the fashion companies involved in the concentration exceeds €50 million.

          There are no local ownership requirements in France. However, French authorities may object to foreign investments in some specific sectors that are essential to guarantee France’s interests in relation to public policy, public security and national defence. As of today’s date, fashion and luxury are not part of these sectors that are protected for national security purposes.

          In addition to prior agreements, such as non-disclosure agreements or promises, final agreements will set out the terms relating to the transaction; in particular, a description of the transferred assets, the price, the warranties granted by the seller, the conditions precedent, any non-competition or non-solicitation clauses. Asset purchase agreements must set out compulsory provisions, such as the name of the previous owner, some details about the annual turnover, otherwise the buyer may claim that the sale is invalid. Most of these agreements, and most sales of French targets and assets, are governed by French law; in particular, the legal transfer of ownership of the target’s shares or assets.

          More specific to the fashion and luxury industries, any sale of a fashion business would entail transferring the ownership of all intellectual property rights tied into that fashion target. As such, the trade marks, which have sometimes been filed on the name of the founding fashion designer of the acquired fashion business (eg, Christian Dior, Chantal Thomass, John Galliano, Ines de la Fressange) would be owned by the buyer, after the sale. Thus, the founding fashion designer would no longer be able to use his or her name to sell fashion and luxury products, without infringing on the trade mark rights of the buyer.

          8.2. Competition

          26 | What competition law provisions are particularly relevant for the luxury and fashion industry?

          Articles L 420-1 and L 420-2 of the French commercial code are the equivalent to articles 101-1 and 102 TFEU and provide for anticompetitive agreements and abuses of a dominant position, respectively.

          Specific provisions of the French commercial code are also applicable, such as article L 410-1 et seq. on pricing, article L 430-1 et seq. on merger control, L 420-2-1 on exclusive rights in French overseas communities, L 420-5 on abusively low prices and L 442-1 et seq. on restrictive practices.

          For example, a decision handed down by the Paris court of appeal on 26 January 2012 confirmed the existence of price fixing agreements, and anti competitive behaviour, between 13 perfume and cosmetics producers (including Chanel, Guerlain, Parfums Christian Dior and Yves Saint Laurent Beaute) and their three French distributors (Sephora, Nocibe France and Marionnaud). The court also upheld the judgment from the FCA, dated 14 March 2006, sentencing each of these luxury goods companies and distributors to fines valued at €40 million overall.

          Court action for breach of competition law may be lodged with a French court of the FCA by any person having a legal interest. Class actions have been available since the entering into force of the Hamon law, but only when the action is filed by a limited number of authorised consumer associations.

          There has been a rise in antitrust damage claims lodged in France, and French courts are now responsive to such claims. A section of the Paris commercial court has been set up to review summons lodged in English, with English-language exhibits, and can rule on competition cases with proceedings fully conducted in the English language.

          As set out in question 4, while selective distribution is tolerated as an exemption, pursuant to article 101(3) TFEU, total restriction of online sales by a manufacturer, to its selective distributors, is a breach under article 101(1) TFEU (Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence and Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi, ECJ, 2011).

          The ECJ has refined its case law (which, of course, applies to France) in its 2017 ruling in Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH. The ECJ ruled that a contractual clause, set out in the selective distribution agreement entered into between Coty and its selective distributors, and which prohibits members of such selective distribution network from selling Coty cosmetics on online marketplaces, such as Amazon, complies with article 101(1) TFEU. This is because, according to the ECJ, the clause is proportionate in its pursuit of preserving the image of Coty cosmetics and perfumes, and because it does not prohibit distributors from selling Coty products on their own online e-commerce sites, provided that some quality criteria are met.

          This new ECJ case law is useful guidance for national courts on how to assess, in pragmatic terms, the prohibition of selling luxury products in marketplaces. Indeed, the Paris court of appeal handed down a judgment in relation to the validity of a similar clause set out in the contracts for Coty France on 28 February 2018, and used the ECJ analysis to confirm the validity of such prohibition, in relation to a marketplace that sold Coty perfumes during private sales.

          9. Employment and labour

          9.1. Managing employment relationships

          27 | What employment law provisions should fashion companies be particularly aware of when managing relationships with employees? What are the usual contractual arrangements for these relationships?

          Employer–employee relationships are governed by the following complex set of laws and regulations that leave little room for individual negotiation:

          • the French labour code set out a comprehensive legal framework for both individual and collective relationships between employers and employees;

          • collective bargaining agreements have been negotiated between employers’ associations and labour unions covering the industry as a whole, or between employers and labour unions covering a company. In the former case, the collective agreement usually applies to the industry sector as a whole, even to companies within that sector that are not part of the employers’ associations (for the fashion and luxury sectors, the ‟clothing industry collective agreement”, the ‘textile industry collective agreement (OETAM)’, or the ‟collective agreement for the footwear industries” may apply, for example); and

          • individual employment agreements, which relate only to the aspects of the employer–employee relationship not already covered by the labour code or relevant collective bargaining agreement.

          Because more than 90 per cent of French employees are protected by collective bargaining agreements, the rules set out in the French labour code are supplemented by more generous rules in areas such as paid leave, maternity leave, medical cover and even working time.

          Under the ‟Aubry law” dated 19 January 2000, a standard 35-hour working week became the rule. Employees working beyond 35 hours are entitled to overtime. A company-wide collective bargaining agreement may provide for a maximum working time of 12 hours, and a maximum weekly working time of 46 hours over 12 consecutive weeks. Extra time is either paid via overtime, or compensating by taking extra days off (called ‟RTT”).

          Any dismissal of a French employee must be notified in writing, and based on a ‘real and serious’ cause. A specific procedure must be followed, including inviting the employee to a pre-dismissal meeting, holding such meeting with the employee, and notifying the dismissal by registered letter with an acknowledgement of receipt. Dismissal for economic reasons and dismissals of employee representatives are subject to additional formalities and requirements, such as the implementation of selection criteria to identify the employees to be dismissed, the involvement of, and approval from, the French labour authorities and compulsory consultation with employee representatives. Upon termination, French employees are entitled to a number of indemnities (severance payment, notice period, paid holidays, etc) and, should the dismissal be deemed to be unfair, the ‟Macron scale”, set out in article L 1235-3 of the French labour code, provides that, in case of a court claim for unfair dismissal, French labour courts must allocate damages to former employees ranging between a minimum and a capped amount, based on the length of service with the former employer. Because many regional labour courts were resisting the application of the ‟Macron scale” to their court cases, the French supreme court ruled in July 2019 that such ‟Macron scale” is enforceable and must apply.

          Of course, French freelancers and consultants who work for fashion and luxury houses are not protected by the above-mentioned French labour rules applying to employer–employee relationships. However, French labour courts are prompt at requalifying an alleged freelancing relationship into an employment relationship, provided that a subordination link (characterised by work done under the authority of an employer, which has the power to give orders, directives, guidelines, and to control the performance of such work, and may sanction any breach of such performance) exists, between the alleged freelancer and the fashion company. Most creative directors of French fashion houses are consultants, not employees, and therefore have the right to execute other fashion projects or contracts, for other fashion houses (for example, Karl Lagerfeld was the creative director of both Chanel and Fendi).

          Article L 124-1 et seq of the French education code provide that a ‟gratification” (not a salary) may be paid to an intern, in France, if the duration of his or her internship is more than two consecutive months. Below that time frame, a French company has no obligation to pay a gratification to an intern. The hourly rate of such gratification is equal to a minimum of €3.90 per internship hour; however, in certain sectors of the industry where collective bargaining agreements apply, the amount may be higher than €3.90.

          9.2. Trade unions

          28 | Are there any special legal or regulatory considerations for fashion companies when dealing with trade unions or works councils?

          As mentioned in question 24, an employer may have to consult employee representatives if it wants to dismiss, for economic reasons, some of its employees. Also, trade unions, either covering a company or a group of companies, or covering an industry as a whole, negotiate, and will renegotiate and amend, any collective bargaining agreements in place in France.

          Unsurprisingly, employee representatives play a very important role, in French employer–employee relationships. Depending on the size of a company, some employee delegates or a works council, as well as a health and safety committee, may have to be appointed and set up. Such employee representatives not only have an important say on significant business issues such as large-scale dismissals, but must be consulted prior to a variety of changes in the business, such as acquisitions, or disposals, of business lines or of the company itself. In French companies with work councils, employee representatives are entitled to attend meetings of the board of directors, but are not allowed to take part in any votes at such meetings. As a result, most strategic decisions are made outside of board of directors’ meetings.

          Dismissals of employee representatives are subject to additional formalities and requirements, such as the approval given by French labour authorities.

          While the top creative management of French fashion houses may be terminated at will, because most creative directors are freelancers, the core labour force of most French fashion and luxury houses (eg, blue-collar workers on the shop floor (seamstresses etc), lower to middle management, etc) is almost immovable because of the above-mentioned strict French labour laws relating to hiring and firing. One advantage of such ‟job security” is that French students and the young labour force do not hesitate to train for, and take on, highly specialised and technical manual jobs, which are necessary to creative and exceptionally high-quality luxury products (eg, embroiderers working for Chanel-owned Lesage, bag makers working for Hermes, feather workers employed by Chanel-owned Lemarie and all the seamstresses working for Chanel and all the haute couture houses in Paris).

          9.3. Immigration

          29 | Are there any special immigration law considerations for fashion companies seeking to move staff across borders or hire and retain talent?

          Yes, the multi-year ‟passeport talent” residence permit was created to attract foreign employees and self-employed persons with a particular skillset (eg, qualified or highly qualified employee, self-employed professional, performer or author of a literary or artistic work) in France.

          Such residence permit provides the right to stay for a maximum of four years in France, starting from the date of arrival in France. A multi-year residence permit may also be granted to the spouse and children of the ‟talented individual”.

          10. Update and trends

          30 | What are the current trends and future prospects for the luxury fashion industry in your jurisdiction? Have there been any notable recent market, legal and or regulatory developments in the sector? What changes in law, regulation, or enforcement should luxury and fashion companies be preparing for?

          The future prospects of the luxury and fashion sectors in France are extremely high, because the Macron reforms are slowly but surely transforming the French economy into a liberalised and free-trade powerhouse, bringing flexibility and innovation at the forefront of the political reform agenda. However, the downside to these sweeping changes is the resistance, violence and riots that have taken place, and still regularly happen, in France, and in Paris in particular, emanating from a French people unsettled about, and scared of, a more free and competitive economic market.

          Fashion and luxury businesses are the first to bear the brunt of these violent acts of resistance, as their retail points on the Champs Elysees and other luxurious locations in Paris and in the provinces have been heavily disrupted (and sometimes ransacked) by rioters, some ‟yellow vests” and ‟anti-pension reforms” social unrest movements.

          However, in the medium to long term, fashion and luxury businesses will be among the first to benefit from those sweeping reforms, thanks to a highly productive, and more flexible, French workforce, better contractual and trade conditions to conduct business in France and abroad, and a highly efficient legal framework and court system that are among the most protective of IP rights owners, in the world.



          Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Lexology Getting the Deal Through – Luxury & Fashion 2020 (Published: April 2020).



          Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




            Your name (required)

            Your email (required)

            Subject

            Your message

            captcha


            Leave a response »

            Why the valuation of intangible assets matters: the unstoppable rise of intangibles’ reporting in the 21st century’s corporate environment

            Crefovi : 15/04/2020 8:00 am : Antitrust & competition, Art law, Articles, Banking & finance, Capital markets, Consumer goods & retail, Copyright litigation, Emerging companies, Entertainment & media, Fashion law, Gaming, Hospitality, Hostile takeovers, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Insolvency & workouts, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Law of luxury goods, Life sciences, Litigation & dispute resolution, Mergers & acquisitions, Music law, Outsourcing, Private equity & private equity finance, Restructuring, Tax, Technology transactions, Trademark litigation, Unsolicited bids

            It is high time France and the UK up their game in terms of accounting for, reporting and leveraging the intangible assets owned by their national businesses and companies, while Asia and the US currently lead the race, here. European lenders need to do their bit, too, to empower creative and innovative SMEs, and provide them with adequate financing to sustain their growth and ambitions, by way of intangible assets backed-lending. 

            valuation of intangible assetsBack in May 2004, I published an in-depth study on the financing of luxury brands, and how the business model developed by large luxury conglomerates was coming out on top. 16 years down the line, I can testify that everything I said in that 2004 study was in the money: the LVMH, Kering, Richemont and L’Oreal of this word dominate the luxury and fashion sectors today, with their multibrands’ business model which allows them to both make vast economies of scale and diversify their economic as well as financial risks.

            However, in the midst of the COVID 19 pandemic which constrains us all to work from home through virtual tools such as videoconferencing, emails, chats and sms, I came to realise that I omitted a very important topic from that 2004 study, which is however acutely relevant in the context of developing, and growing, creative businesses in the 21st century. It is that intangible assets are becoming the most important and valuable assets of creative companies (including, of course, luxury and fashion houses).

            Indeed, traditionally, tangible and fixed assets, such as land, plants, stock, inventory and receivables were used to assess the intrinsic value of a company, and, in particular, were used as security in loan transactions. Today, most successful businesses out there, in particular in the technology sector (Airbnb, Uber, Facebook) but not only, derive the largest portion of their worth from their intangible assets, such as intellectual property rights (trademarks, patents, designs, copyright), brands, knowhow, reputation, customer loyalty, a trained workforce, contracts, licensing rights, franchises.

            Our economy has changed in fundamental ways, as business is now mainly ‟knowledge based”, rather than industrial, and ‟intangibles” are the new drivers of economic activity, the Financial Reporting Council (‟FRC”) set out in its paper ‟Business reporting of intangibles: realistic proposals”, back in February 2019.

            However, while such intangibles are becoming the driving force of our businesses and economies worldwide, they are consistently ignored by chartered accountants, bankers and financiers alike. As a result, most companies – in particular, Small and Medium Enterprises (‟SMEs”)- cannot secure any financing with money men because their intangibles are still deemed to … well, in a nutshell … lack physical substance! This limits the scope of growth of many creative businesses; to their detriment of course, but also to the detriment of the UK and French economies in which SMEs account for an astounding 99 percent of private sector business, 59 percent of private sector employment and 48 percent of private sector turnover.

            How could this oversight happen and materialise, in the last 20 years? Where did it all go wrong? Why do we need to very swiftly address this lack of visionary thinking, in terms of pragmatically adapting double-entry book keeping and accounting rules to the realities of companies operating in the 21st century?

            How could such adjustments in, and updates to, our old ways of thinking about the worth of our businesses, be best implemented, in order to balance the need for realistic valuations of companies operating in the “knowledge economy” and the concern expressed by some stakeholders that intangible assets might peter out at the first reputation blow dealt to any business?

            1. What is the valuation and reporting of intangible assets?

            1.1. Recognition and measurement of intangible assets within accounting and reporting

            In the European Union (‟EU”), there are two levels of accounting regulation:

            • the international level, which corresponds to the International Accounting Standards (‟IAS”), and International Financial Reporting Standards (‟IFRS”) issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (‟IASB”), which apply compulsorily to the consolidated financial statements of listed companies and voluntarily to other accounts and entities according to the choices of each country legislator, and
            • a national level, where the local regulations are driven by the EU accounting directives, which have been issued from 1978 onwards, and which apply to the remaining accounts and companies in each EU member-state.

            The first international standard on recognition and measurement of intangible assets was International Accounting Standard 38 (‟IAS 38”), which was first issued in 1998. Even though it has been amended several times since, there has not been any significant change in its conservative approach to recognition and measurement of intangible assets.

            An asset is a resource that is controlled by a company as a result of past events (for example a purchase or self-creation) and from which future economic benefits (such as inflows of cash or other assets) are expected to flow to this company. An intangible asset is defined by IAS 38 as an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance.

            There is a specific reference to intellectual property rights (‟IPRs”), in the definition of ‟intangible assets” set out in paragraph 9 of IAS 38, as follows: ‟entities frequently expend resources, or incur liabilities, on the acquisition, development, maintenance or enhancement of intangible resources such as scientific or technical knowledge, design and implementation of new processes or systems, licenses, intellectual property, market knowledge and trademarks (including brand names and publishing titles). Common examples of items encompassed by these broad headings are computer software, patents, copyrights, motion picture films, customer lists, mortgage servicing rights, fishing licences, import quotas, franchises, customer or supplier relationships, customer loyalty, market share and marketing rights”.

            However, it is later clarified in IAS 38, that in order to recognise an intangible asset on the face of balance sheet, it must be identifiable and controlled, as well as generate future economic benefits flowing to the company that owns it.

            The recognition criterion of ‟identifiability” is described in paragraph 12 of IAS 38 as follows.

            An asset is identifiable if it either:

            a. is separable, i.e. capable of being separated or divided from the entity and sold, transferred, licensed, rented or exchanged, either individually or together with a related contract, identifiable asset or liability, regardless of whether the entity intends to do so; or

            b. arises from contractual or other legal rights, regardless of whether those rights are transferable or separable from the entity or from other rights and obligations”.

            ‟Control” is an essential feature in accounting and is described in paragraph 13 of IAS 38.

            An entity controls an asset if the entity has the power to obtain the future economic benefits flowing from the underlying resource and to restrict the access of others to those benefits. The capacity of an entity to control the future economic benefits from an intangible asset would normally stem from legal rights that are enforceable in a court of law. In the absence of legal rights, it is more difficult to demonstrate control. However, legal enforceability of a right is not a necessary condition for control because an entity may be able to control the future economic benefits in some other way”.

            In order to have an intangible asset recognised as an asset on company balance sheet, such intangible has to satisfy also some specific accounting recognition criteria, which are set out in paragraph 21 of IAS 38.

            An intangible asset shall be recognised if, and only if:

            a. it is probable that the expected future economic benefits that are attributable to the asset will flow to the entity; and 

            b. the cost of the asset can be measured reliably”.

            The recognition criteria illustrated above are deemed to be always satisfied when an intangible asset is acquired by a company from an external party at a price. Therefore, there are no particular problems to record an acquired intangible asset on the balance sheet of the acquiring company, at the consideration paid (i.e. historical cost).

            1.2. Goodwill v. other intangible assets

            Here, before we develop any further, we must draw a distinction between goodwill and other intangible assets, for clarification purposes.

            Goodwill is an intangible asset that is associated with the purchase of one company by another. Specifically, goodwill is the portion of the purchase price that is higher than the sum of the net fair value of all of the assets purchased in the acquisition and the liabilities assumed in the process (= purchase price of the acquired company – (net fair market value of identifiable assets – net fair value of identifiable liabilities)).

            The value of a company’s brand name, solid customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, as well as proprietary technology, represent some examples of goodwill, in this context.

            The value of goodwill arises in an acquisition, i.e. when an acquirer purchases a target company. Goodwill is then recorded as an intangible asset on the acquiring company’s balance sheet under the long-term assets’ account.

            Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (‟GAAP”) and IFRS, these companies which acquired targets in the past and therefore recorded those targets’ goodwill on their balance sheet, are then required to evaluate the value of goodwill on their financial statements at least once a year, and record any impairments.

            Impairment of an asset occurs when its market value drops below historical cost, due to adverse events such as declining cash flows, a reputation backlash, increased competitive environment, etc. Companies assess whether an impairment is needed by performing an impairment test on the intangible asset. If the company’s acquired net assets fall below the book value, or if the company overstated the amount of goodwill, then it must impair or do a write-down on the value of the asset on the balance sheet, after it has assessed that the goodwill is impaired. The impairment expense is calculated as the difference between the current market value and the purchase price of the intangible asset. The impairment results in a decrease in the goodwill account on the balance sheet.

            This expense is also recognised as a loss on the income statement, which directly reduces net income for the year. In turn, earnings per share (‟EPS”) and the company’s stock price are also negatively affected.

            The Financial Accounting Standards Board (‟FASB”), which sets standards for GAAP rules, and the IASB, which sets standards for IFRS rules, are considering a change to how goodwill impairment is calculated. Because of the subjectivity of goodwill impairment, and the cost of testing impairment, FASB and IASB are considering reverting to an older method called ‟goodwill amortisation” in which the value of goodwill is slowly reduced annually over a number of years.

            As set out above, goodwill is not the same as other intangible assets because it is a premium paid over fair value during a transaction, and cannot be bought or sold independently. Meanwhile, other intangible assets can be bought and sold independently.

            Also, goodwill has an indefinite life, while other intangibles have a definite useful life (i.e. an accounting estimate of the number of years an asset is likely to remain in service for the purpose of cost-effective revenue generation).

            1.3. Amortisation, impairment and subsequent measure of intangible assets other than goodwill

            That distinction between goodwill and other intangible assets being clearly drawn, let’s get back to the issues revolving around recording intangible assets (other than goodwill) on the balance sheet of a company.

            As set out above, if some intangible assets are acquired as a consequence of a business purchase or combination, the acquiring company recognises all these intangible assets, provided that they meet the definition of an intangible asset. This results in the recognition of intangibles – including brand names, IPRs, customer relationships – that would not have been recognised by the acquired company that developed them in the first place. Indeed, paragraph 34 of IAS 38 provides that ‟in accordance with this Standard and IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008), an acquirer recognises at the acquisition date, separately from goodwill, an intangible asset of the acquiree, irrespective of whether the asset had been recognised by the acquiree before the business combination. This means that the acquirer recognises as an asset separately from goodwill an in-process research and development project of the acquiree, if the project meets the definition of an intangible asset. An acquiree’s in-process research and development project meets the definition of an intangible asset when it:

            a. meets the definition of an asset, and 

            b. is identifiable, i.e. separable or arises from contractual or other legal rights.”

            Therefore, in a business acquisition or combination, the intangible assets that are ‟identifiable” (either separable or arising from legal rights) can be recognised and capitalised in the balance sheet of the acquiring company.

            After initial recognition, the accounting value in the balance sheet of intangible assets with definite useful lives (e.g. IPRs, licenses) has to be amortised over the intangible asset’s expected useful life, and is subject to impairment tests when needed. As explained above, intangible assets with indefinite useful lives (such as goodwill or brands) will not be amortised, but only subject at least annually to an impairment test to verify whether the impairment indicators (‟triggers”) are met. 

            Alternatively, after initial recognition (at cost or at fair value in the case of business acquisitions or mergers), intangible assets with definite useful lives may be revalued at fair value less amortisation, provided there is an active market for the asset to be referred to, as can be inferred from paragraph 75 of IAS 38:

            After initial recognition, an intangible asset shall be carried at a revalued amount, being its fair value at the date of the revaluation less any subsequent accumulated amortisation and any subsequent accumulated impairment losses. For the purpose of revaluations under this Standard, fair value shall be measured by reference to an active market. Revaluations shall be made with such regularity that at the end of the reporting period the carrying amount of the asset does not differ materially from its fair value.”

            However, this standard indicates that the revaluation model can only be used in rare situations, where there is an active market for these intangible assets.

            1.4. The elephant in the room: a lack of recognition and measurement of internally generated intangible assets

            All the above about the treatment of intangible assets other than goodwill cannot be said for internally generated intangible assets. Indeed, IAS 38 sets out important differences in the treatment of those internally generated intangibles, which is currently – and rightfully – the subject of much debate among regulators and other stakeholders.

            Internally generated intangible assets are prevented from being recognised, from an accounting standpoint, as they are being developed (while a business would normally account for internally generated tangible assets). Therefore, a significant proportion of internally generated intangible assets is not recognised in the balance sheet of a company. As a consequence, stakeholders such as investors, regulators, shareholders, financiers, are not receiving some very relevant information about this enterprise, and its accurate worth.

            Why such a standoffish attitude towards internally generated intangible assets? In practice, when the expenditure to develop intangible asset is incurred, it is often very unclear whether that expenditure is going to generate future economic benefits. It is this uncertainty that prevents many intangible assets from being recognised as they are being developed. This perceived lack of reliability of the linkage between expenditures and future benefits pushes towards the treatment of such expenditures as ‟period cost”. It is not until much later, when the uncertainty is resolved (e.g. granting of a patent), that an intangible asset may be capable of recognition. As current accounting requirements primarily focus on transactions, an event such as the resolution of uncertainty surrounding an internally developed IPR is generally not captured in company financial statements.

            Let’s take the example of research and development costs (‟R&D”), which is one process of internally creating certain types of intangible assets, to illustrate the accounting treatment of intangible assets created in this way. 

            Among accounting standard setters, such as IASB with its IAS 38, the most frequent practice is to require the immediate expensing of all R&D. However, France, Italy and Australia are examples of countries where national accounting rule makers allow the capitalisation of R&D, subject to conditions being satisfied. 

            Therefore, in some circumstances, internally generated intangible assets can be recognised when the relevant set of recognition criteria is met, in particular the existence of a clear linkage of the expenditure to future benefits accruing to the company. This is called condition-based capitalisation. In these cases, the cost that a company has incurred in that financial year, can be capitalised as an asset; the previous costs having already been expensed in earlier income statements. For example, when a patent is finally granted by the relevant intellectual property office, only the expenses incurred during that financial year can be capitalised and disclosed on the face of balance sheet among intangible fixed assets.

            To conclude, under the current IFRS and GAAP regimes, internally generated intangible assets, such as IPRs, can only be recognised on balance sheet in very rare instances.

            2.Why value and report intangible assets?

            As developed in depth by the European Commission (‟EC”) in its 2013 final report from the expert group on intellectual property valuation, the UK intellectual property office (‟UKIPO”) in its 2013 ‟Banking on IP?” report and the FRC in its 2019 discussion paper ‟Business reporting of intangibles: realistic proposals”, the time for radical change to the accounting of intangible assets has come upon us. 

            2.1. Improving the accurateness and reliability of financial communication

            Existing accounting standards should be advanced, updated and modernised to take greater account of intangible assets and consequently improve the relevance, objectivity and reliability of financial statements.

            Not only that, but informing stakeholders (i.e. management, employees, shareholders, regulators, financiers, investors) appropriately and reliably is paramount today, in a corporate world where companies are expected to accurately, regularly and expertly manage and broadcast their financial communication to medias and regulators.

            As highlighted by Janice Denoncourt in her blog post ‟intellectual property, finance and corporate governance”, no stakeholder wants an iteration of the Theranos’ fiasco, during which inventor and managing director Elizabeth Holmes was indicted for fraud in excess of USD700 million, by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (‟SEC”), for having repeatedly, yet inaccurately, said that Theranos’ patented blood testing technology was both revolutionary and at the last stages of its development. Elizabeth Holmes made those assertions on the basis of the more than 270 patents that her and her team filed with the United States patent and trademark office (‟USPTO”), while making some material omissions and misleading disclosures to the SEC, via Theranos’ financial statements, on the lame justification that ‟Theranos needed to protect its intellectual property” (sic).

            Indeed, the stakes of financial communication are so high, in particular for the branding and reputation of any ‟knowledge economy” company, that, back in 2002, LVMH did not hesitate to sue Morgan Stanley, the investment bank advising its nemesis, Kering (at the time, named ‟PPR”), in order to obtain Euros100 million of damages resulting from Morgan Stanley’s alleged breach of conflicts of interests between its investment banking arm (which advised PPR’s top-selling brand, Gucci) and Morgan Stanley’s financial research division. According to LVMH, Clare Kent, Morgan Stanley’s luxury sector-focused analyst, systematically drafted and then published negative and biased research against LVMH share and financial results, in order to favor Gucci, the top-selling brand of the PPR luxury conglomerate and Morgan Stanley’s top client. While this lawsuit – the first of its kind in relation to alleged biased conduct in a bank’s financial analysis – looked far-fetched when it was lodged in 2002, LVMH actually won, both in first instance and on appeal.

            Having more streamlined and accurate accounting, reporting and valuation of intangible assets – which are, today, the main and most valuable assets of any 21st century corporation – is therefore paramount for efficient and reliable financial communication.

            2.2. Improving and diversifying access to finance

            Not only that, but recognising the worth and inherent value of intangible assets, on balance sheet, would greatly improve the chances of any company – in particular, SMEs – to successfully apply for financing.

            Debt finance is notoriously famous for shying away from using intangible assets as main collateral against lending because it is too risky.

            For example, taking appropriate security controls over a company’s registered IPRs in a lending scenario would involve taking a fixed charge, and recording it properly on the Companies Registry at Companies House (in the UK) and on the appropriate IPRs’ registers. However, this hardly ever happens. Typically, at best, lenders are reliant on a floating charge over IPRs, which will crystallise in case of an event of default being triggered – by which time, important IPRs may have disappeared into thin air, or been disposed of; hence limiting the lender’s recovery prospects.

            Alternatively, it is now possible for a lender to take an assignment of an IPR by way of security (generally with a licence back to the assignor to permit his or her continued use of the IPR) by an assignment in writing signed by the assignor[1]. However, this is rarely done in practice. The reason is to avoid ‟maintenance”, i.e. to prevent the multiplicity of actions. Indeed, because intangibles are incapable of being possessed, and rights over them are therefore ultimately enforced by action, it has been considered that the ability to assign such rights would increase the number of actions[2].

            Whilst there are improvements needed to the practicalities and easiness of registering a security interest over intangible assets, the basic step that is missing is a clear inventory of IPRs and other intangible assets, on balance sheet and/or on yearly financial statements, without which lenders can never be certain that these assets are in fact to hand.

            Cases of intangible asset- backed lending (‟IABL”) have occurred, whereby a bank provided a loan to a pension fund against tangible assets, and the pension fund then provided a sale and leaseback arrangement against intangible assets. Therefore, IABL from pension funds (on a sale and leaseback arrangement), rather than banks, provides a route for SMEs to obtain loans.

            There have also been instances where specialist lenders have entered into sale and licence-back agreements, or sale and leaseback agreements, secured against intangible assets, including trademarks and software copyright. 

            Some other types of funders than lenders, however, are already making the ‟intangible assets” link, such as equity investors (business angels, venture capital companies and private equity funds). They know that IPRs and other intangibles represent part of the ‟skin in the game” for SMEs owners and managers, who have often expended significant time and money in their creation, development and protection. Therefore, when equity investors assess the quality and attractiveness of investment opportunities, they invariably include consideration of the underlying intangible assets, and IPRs in particular. They want to understand the extent to which intangible assets owned by one of the companies they are potentially interested investing in, represent a barrier to entry, create freedom to operate and meet a real market need.

            Accordingly, many private equity funds, in particular, have delved into investing in luxury companies, attracted by their high gross margins and net profit rates, as I explained in my 2013 article ‟Financing luxury companies: the quest of the Holy Grail (not!)”. Today, some of the most active venture capital firms investing in the European creative industries are Accel, Advent Venture Partners, Index Ventures, Experienced Capital, to name a few.

            2.3. Adopting a systematic, consistent and streamlined approach to the valuation of intangible assets, which levels the playing field

            If intangible assets are to be recognised in financial statements, in order to adopt a systematic and streamlined approach to their valuation, then fair value is the most obvious alternative to cost, as explained in paragraph 1.3. above.

            How could we use fair value more widely, in order to capitalise intangible assets in financial statements?

            IFRS 13 ‟Fair Value Measurements” identifies three widely-used valuation techniques: the market approach, the cost approach and the income approach.

            The market approachuses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable” assets. However, this approach is difficult in practice, since when transactions in intangibles occur, the prices are rarely made public. Publicly traded data usually represents a market capitalisation of the enterprise, not singular intangible assets. Market data from market participants is often used in income based models such as determining reasonable royalty rates and discount rates. Direct market evidence is usually available in the valuation of internet domain names, carbon emission rights and national licences (for radio stations, for example). Other relevant market data include sale/licence transactional data, price multiples and royalty rates.

            The cost approachreflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset”. Deriving fair value under this approach therefore requires estimating the costs of developing an equivalent intangible asset. In practice, it is often difficult to estimate in advance the costs of developing an intangible. In most cases, replacement cost new is the most direct and meaningful cost based means of estimating the value of an intangible asset. Once replacement cost new is estimated, various forms of obsolescence must be considered, such as functional, technological and economic. Cost based models are best used for valuing an assembled workforce, engineering drawings or designs and internally developed software where no direct cash flow is generated.

            The income approach essentially converts future cash flows (or income and expenses) to a single, discounted present value, usually as a result of increased turnover of cost savings. Income based models are best used when the intangible asset is income producing or when it allows an asset to generate cash flow. The calculation may be similar to that of value in use. However, to arrive at fair value, the future income must be estimated from the perspective of market participants rather than that of the entity. Therefore, applying the income approach requires an insight into how market participants would assess the benefits (cash flows) that will be obtained uniquely from an intangible asset (where such cash flows are different from the cash flows related to the whole company). Income based methods are usually employed to value customer related intangibles, trade names, patents, technology, copyrights, and covenants not to compete.

            An example of IPRs’ valuation by way of fair value, using the cost and income approaches in particular, is given in the excellent presentation by Austin Jacobs, made during ialci’s latest law of luxury goods and fashion seminar on intellectual property rights in the fashion and luxury sectors.

            In order to make these three above-mentioned valuation techniques more effective, with regards to intangible assets, and because many intangibles will not be recognised in financial statements as they fail to meet the definition of an asset or the recognition criteria, a reconsideration to the ‟Conceptual Framework to Financial Reporting” needs being implemented by the IASB.

            These amendments to the Conceptual Framework would permit more intangibles to be recognised within financial statements, in a systematic, consistent, uniform and streamlined manner, therefore levelling the playing field among companies from the knowledge economy.

            Let’s not forget that one of the reasons WeWork co founder, Adam Neumann, was violently criticised, during WeWork’s failed IPO attempt, and then finally ousted, in 2019, was the fact that he was paid nearly USD6 million for granting the right to use his registered word trademark ‟We”, to his own company WeWork. In its IPO filing prospectus, which provided the first in-depth look at WeWork’s financial results, WeWork characterised the nearly USD6 million payment as ‟fair market value”. Many analysts, among which Scott Galloway, begged to differ, outraged by the lack of rigour and realism in the valuation of the WeWork brand, and the clearly opportunistic attitude adopted by Adam Neumann to get even richer, faster.

            2.4. Creating a liquid, established and free secondary market of intangible assets

            IAS 38 currently permits intangible assets to be recognised at fair value, as discussed above in paragraphs 1.3. and 2.3., measured by reference to an active market.

            While acknowledging that such markets may exist for assets such as ‟freely transferable taxi licences, fishing licences or production quotas”, IAS 38 states that ‟it is uncommon for an active market to exist for an intangible asset”. It is even set out, in paragraph 78 of IAS 38 that ‟an active market cannot exist for brands, newspaper mastheads, music and film publishing rights, patents or trademarks, because each such asset is unique”.

            Markets for resale of intangible assets and IPRs do exist, but are presently less formalised and offer less certainty on realisable values. There is no firmly established secondary transaction market for intangible assets (even though some assets are being sold out of insolvency) where value can be realised. In addition, in the case of forced liquidation, intangible assets’ value can be eroded, as highlighted in paragraph 2.2. above.

            Therefore, markets for intangible assets are currently imperfect, in particular because there is an absence of mature marketplaces in which intangible assets may be sold in the event of default, insolvency or liquidation. There is not yet the same tradition of disposal, or the same volume of transaction data, as that which has historically existed with tangible fixed assets.

            Be that as it may, the rise of liquid secondary markets of intangible assets is unstoppable. In the last 15 years, the USA have been at the forefront of IPRs auctions, mainly with patent auctions managed by specialist auctioneers such as ICAP Ocean Tomo and Racebrook. For example, in 2006, ICAP Ocean Tomo sold 78 patent lots at auction for USD8.5 million, while 6,000 patents were sold at auction by Canadian company Nortel Networks for USD4.5 billion in 2011.

            However, auctions are not limited to patents, as demonstrated by the New York auction, successfully organised by ICAP Ocean Tomo in 2006, on lots composed of patents, trademarks, copyrights, musical rights and domain names, where the sellers were IBM, Motorola, Siemens AG, Kimberly Clark, etc. In 2010, Racebrook auctioned 150 American famous brands from the retail and consumer goods’ sectors.

            In Europe, in 2012, Vogica successfully sold its trademarks and domain names at auction to competitor Parisot Group, upon its liquidation.

            In addition, global licensing activity leaves not doubt that intangible assets, in particular IPRs, are, in fact, very valuable, highly tradable and a very portable asset class.

            It is high time to remove all market’s imperfections, make trading more transparent and offer options to the demand side, to get properly tested.

            3. Next steps to improve the valuation and reporting of intangible assets

            3.1. Adjust IAS 38 and the Conceptual Framework to Financial Reporting to the realities of intangible assets’ reporting

            Mainstream lenders, as well as other stakeholders, need cost-effective, standardised approaches in order to capture and process information on intangibles and IPRs (which is not currently being presented by SMEs).

            This can be achieved by reforming IAS 38 and the ‟Conceptual Framework to Financial Reporting”, at the earliest convenience, in order to make most intangible assets capitalised on financial statements at realistic and consistent valuations.

            In particular, the reintroduction of amortisation of goodwill may be a pragmatic way to reduce the impact of different accounting treatment for acquired and internally generated intangibles.

            In addition, narrative reporting (i.e. reports with titles such as ‟Management Commentary” or ‟Strategic Report”, which generally form part of the annual report, and other financial communication documents such as ‟Preliminary Earnings Announcements” that a company provides primarily for the information of investors) must set out detailed information on unrecognised intangibles, as well as amplify what is reported within the financial statements. 

            3.2. Use standardised and consistent metrics within financial statements and other financial communication documents

            The usefulness and credibility of narrative information would be greatly enhanced by the inclusion of metrics (i.e. numerical measures that are relevant to an assessment of the company’s intangibles) standardised by industry. The following are examples of objective and verifiable metrics that may be disclosed through narrative reporting:

            • a company that identifies customer loyalty as critical to the success of its business model might disclose measures of customer satisfaction, such as the percentage of customers that make repeat purchases;
            • if the ability to innovate is a key competitive advantage, the proportion of sales from new products may be a relevant metric;
            • where the skill of employees is a key driver of value, employee turnover may be disclosed, together with information about their training.

            3.3. Make companies’ boards accountable for intangibles’ reporting

            Within a company, at least one appropriately qualified person should be appointed and publicly reported as having oversight and responsibility for intangibles’ auditing, valuation, due diligence and reporting (for example a director, specialist advisory board or an external professional adviser).

            This would enhance the importance of corporate governance and board oversight, in addition to reporting, with respect to intangible assets.

            In particular, some impairment tests could be introduced, to ensure that businesses are well informed and motivated to adopt appropriate intangibles’ management practices, which should be overseen by the above-mentioned appointed board member.

            3.4. Create a body that trains about, and regulates, the field of intangible assets’ valuation and reporting

            The creation of a professional organisation for the intangible assets’ valuation profession would increase transparency of intangibles’ valuations and trust towards valuation professionals (i.e. lawyers, IP attorneys, accountants, economists, etc).

            This valuation professional organisation would set some key objectives that will protect the public interest in all matters that pertain to the profession, establish professional standards (especially standards of professional conduct) and represent professional valuers.

            This organisation would, in addition, offer training and education on intangibles’ valuations. Therefore, the creation of informative material and the development of intangible assets’ training programmes would be a priority, and would guarantee the high quality valuation of IPRs and other intangibles as a way of boosting confidence for the field.

            Company board members who are going to be appointed as having accountability and responsibility for intangibles’ valuation within the business, as mentioned above in paragraph 3.3., could greatly benefit from regular training sessions offered by this future valuation professional organisation, in particular for continuing professional development purposes.

            3.5. Create a powerful register of expert intangible assets’ valuers

            In order to build trust, the creation of a register of expert intangibles’ valuers, whose ability must first be certified by passing relevant knowledge tests, is key. 

            Inclusion on this list would involve having to pass certain aptitudes tests and, to remain on it, valuers would have to maintain a standard of quality in the valuations carried out, whereby the body that manages this registry would be authorised to expel members whose reports are not up to standard. This is essential in order to maintain confidence in the quality and skill of the valuers included on the register.

            The entity that manages this body of valuers would have the power to review the valuations conducted by the valuers certified by this institution as a ‟second instance”. The body would need to have the power to re-examine the assessments made by these valuers (inspection programme), and even eliminate them if it is considered that the assessment is overtly incorrect (fair disciplinary mechanism).

            3.6. Establish an intangible assets’ marketplace and data-source

            The development most likely to transform IPRs and intangibles as an asset class is the emergence of more transparent and accessible marketplaces where they can be traded. 

            In particular, as IPRs and intangible assets become clearly identified and are more freely licensed, bought and sold (together with or separate to the business), the systems available to register and track financial interests will need to be improved. This will require the cooperation of official registries and the establishment of administrative protocols. 

            Indeed, the credibility of intangibles’ valuations would be greatly enhanced by improving valuation information, especially by collecting information and data on actual and real intangibles’ transactions in a suitable form, so that it can be used, for example, to support IPRs asset-based lending decisions. If this information is made available, lenders and expert valuers will be able to base their estimates on more widely accepted and verified assumptions, and consequently, their valuation results – and valuation reports – would gain greater acceptance and reliability from the market at large.

            The wide accessibility of complete, quality information which is based on real negotiations and transactions, via this open data-source, would help to boost confidence in the validity and accuracy of valuations, which will have a very positive effect on transactions involving IPRs and other intangibles.

            3.7. Introduce a risk sharing loan guarantee scheme for banks to facilitate intangibles’ secured lending

            A dedicated loan guarantee scheme needs being introduced, to facilitate intangible assets’ secured lending to innovative and creative SMEs.

            Asia is currently setting the pace in intangibles-backed lending. In 2014, the intellectual property office of Singapore (‟IPOS”) launched a USD100 million ‟IP financing scheme” designed to support local SMEs to use their granted IPRs as collateral for bank loans. A panel of IPOS-appointed valuers assess the applicant’s IPR portfolio using standard guidelines to provide lenders with a basis on which to determine the amount of funds to be advanced. The development of a national valuation model is a noteworthy aspect of the scheme and could lead to an accepted valuation methodology in the future.

            The Chinese intellectual property office (‟CIPO”) has developed some patent-backed debt finance initiatives. Only 6 years after the ‟IP pledge financing” programme was launched by CIPO in 2008, CIPO reported that Chinese companies had secured over GBP6 billion in IPRs-backed loans since the programme launched. The Chinese government having way more direct control and input into commercial bank lending policy and capital adequacy requirements, it can vigorously and potently implement its strategic goal of increasing IPRs-backed lending. 

            It is high time Europe follows suit, at least by putting in place some loan guarantees that would increase lender’s confidence in making investments by sharing the risks related to the investment. A guarantor assumes a debt obligation if the borrower defaults. Most loan guarantee schemes are established to correct perceived market failures by which small borrowers, regardless of creditworthiness, lack access to the credit resources available to large borrowers. Loan guarantee schemes level the playing field.

            The proposed risk sharing loan guarantee scheme set up by the European Commission or by a national government fund (in particular in the UK, who is brexiting) would be specifically targeted at commercial banks in order to stimulate intangibles-secured lending to innovative SMEs. The guarantor would fully guarantee the intangibles-secured loan and share the risk of lending to SMEs (which have suitable IPRs and intangibles) with the commercial bank. 

            The professional valuer serves an important purpose, in this future loan guarantee scheme, since he or she will fill the knowledge gap relating to the IPRs and intangibles, as well as their value, in the bank’s loan procedure. If required, the expert intangibles’ valuer provides intangibles’ valuation expertise and technology transfer to the bank, until such bank has built the relevant capacity to perform intangible assets’ valuations. Such valuations would be performed, either by valuers and/or banks, according to agreed, consistent, homogenised and accepted methods/standards and a standardised intangible asset’s valuation methodology.

            To conclude, in this era of ultra-competitiveness and hyper-globalisation, France and the UK, and Europe in general, must immediately jump on the saddle of progress, by reforming outdated and obsolete accounting and reporting standards, as well as by implementing all the above-mentioned new measures and strategies, to realistically and consistently value, report and leverage intangible assets in the 21st century economy.

            [1] ‟Lingard’s bank security documents”, Timothy N. Parsons, 4th edition, LexisNexis, page 450 and seq.

            [2] ‟Taking security – law and practice”, Richard Calnan, Jordans, page 74 and seq.



            Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




              Your name (required)

              Your email (required)

              Subject

              Your message

              captcha


              Leave a response »

              Netflix’s vertical integration strategy: I was right on the money

              Crefovi : 01/04/2018 8:00 am : Antitrust & competition, Articles, Copyright litigation, Entertainment & media, Gaming, Hostile takeovers, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Litigation & dispute resolution, Mergers & acquisitions, Private equity & private equity finance, Restructuring, Technology transactions, Unsolicited bids

              Where does Netflix stand, in terms of expanding its business model, content and distribution channels, worldwide? Where is it heading towards, in the current content distribution ecosystem?

              Netflix vertical integration1. Netflix’s state of play in 2018

              On 15 May 2015, during the ‟In conversation with Ted Sarandos” event at the Cannes Film Festival, I asked Netflix’s chief content officer why not acquiring some major film studios in order to have more power and clout, while negotiating the shortening, or even removal, of the ‟first theatrical window” to release audiovisual content into the public domain worldwide. Surely, through vertical integration, Netflix would be able to successfully convince countries’ governments and theatre owners, around the world, that adopting its day-and-date release strategy is a win-win solution for all?

              Ted Sarandos was visibly annoyed by my question at the time, dismissed it entirely by saying something to the effect that buying independent or major studios would not work because Netflix would not get access to their back catalogue anyway, which was where the real cash was. I was baffled by the narrow-minded approach adopted by Sarandos in his reply to my points, but thought he may have snapped that back at me because I was putting him on the spot in front of an audience of more than 300 people, at the most prestigious film festival on earth!

              Three years down the line, and my envisioned best strategy for Netflix to beef up its worldwide presence, not only online, but also in the brick and mortar space, is becoming a reality. I was dead on the money: Netflix reported yesterday that they are in advanced talks to acquire Luc Besson’s EuropaCorp studios.

              This is the only way forward, for Netflix, as it has almost reached saturation as far as the distribution of its content on its website and online applications are concerned, worldwide. Indeed, Netflix members with a streaming-only plan can watch TV shows and movies instantly in over 190 countries (Netflix is only not yet available in China, nor is it available in Crimea, North Korea, or Syria due to US government restrictions on American companies there). Moreover, in key markets such as the US, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, Netflix had a penetration rate as high as 72 percent in the second quarter of 2017.

              While more and more consumers subscribe to Netflix streaming plans around the world, with a total number of 117.58 million streaming subscribers worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2017, the average length of subscription to Netflix is 43 months per US broadband households. Therefore, Netflix benefits from a loyal and dutifully paying customer base, which is growing at a 18 percent rate year-on-year. Fixed as well as operating costs, and overheads, are relatively low for Netflix, since it only counts approximately 5,400 employees (by comparison, Microsoft has 124,000 while Apple has 123,000) and since it does not need any plush real estate or other types of tangible assets as part of its successful business strategy. Meanwhile, Netflix’s revenues in 2017 were USD11.69 billion – increasing more than tenfold between 2005 and 2016 – and Netflix’s net income in 2017 was at a comfortable and cushy USD559 million.

              Basically, Netflix is swimming in cash, having now successfully implemented its scaling-up strategy in the online space, worldwide. All this disposable income needs being reinvested back into the business, co-founders Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph not being the types of guys slaving for Netflix’s shareholders by splurging into annual dividends’ distributions. In fact, Netflix never paid dividends to its shareholders in the past 10 years!

              2. First step of Netflix’s vertical integration strategy: leap into content creation and production

              In the last 5 years, 1997 founded Netflix, which started out as a postal DVD rental company, successfully implemented the first steps to its vertical integration strategy, no matter what Sarandos has to say on the subject.

              The real decision-maker, here, is co-founder, chairman and CEO Reed Hastings, who has fully grasped that Netflix must own every product or service of its supply chain, to make real money. In this context, vertical integration entails owning distribution as well as content. Hence, the leap into content creation and production for Netflix, as licensing existing content was merely enough to beef up its budding catalogue and render it attractive to a wider and ever more culturally-diversified customer base growing exponentially around the world.

              Making beaucoup bucks comes from owning 100 percent of the content, without any licensing royalties to pay back to rightowners. Such fully-owned content can even be licensed back, opening up new revenue streams such as content licensing or even a branded channel with traditional distributors, for Netflix. Films can be easily snatched up at film markets in Sundance, Berlin, Cannes and the American Film Market in Santa-Monica all year round, and Netflix’s deep pockets let it pick the very best of the crop on offer from sales agents and distributors avid to ingratiate themselves with streaming video on-demand services (‟SVoD services”). Film and show projects and productions are also brokered directly between the talent and Netflix, the most notable examples of that being Netflix’s production and commission of House of Cards, Orange is the new Black, The Crown, Making a Murderer, and Stranger Things. In 2018, Netflix Originals’ busy-bee content pipeline is made up of 80 films that the company has either acquired or commissioned, which sounds positively outlandish compared to the 12 films released by Disney, and 20 released by Warner Bros, in 2018.

              Owning the content also solves the headache posed by the theatrical distribution model which, according to Ted Sarandos, ‟is pretty antiquated for the on-demand audiences we are looking to serve”. Netflix, he said, is not looking to kill windowing but rather to “restore choice and options” for viewers by moving to day-and-date releases. Indeed, Netflix has brokered many recent theatrical deals – it plans to release the sequel to Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon day-and-date online and in Inmax theatres. This (overdue) move into day-and-date release positively enrages theatre owners and exhibitors, especially further to the snafu triggered by Netflix managing to get two of its original films, Okja and The Meyerowitz Stories, chosen to compete in the official selection of the 2017 Cannes film festival.

              3. Next step of Netflix’s vertical integration strategy: film studios’ acquisitions

              Netflix’s vertical integration and expansion strategy does not stop here, though, because it still has so much disposable income to invest and, hey, why not acquiring more content, stakeholders, market share and clout in the films’ and shows’ sectors, if you can, right? SVoD services like Netflix have declared an open war on the fragmented audiovisual content industry which has prospered for decades, grazing on horizontally segmented industry models. Netflix is at the forefront of structuring end-to-end vertical SVoD services, going direct to consumers and ruthlessly bypassing theatres, broadcasters, networks, cable operators and even television manufacturers. This digital revolution transforms television and filmed entertainment, especially traditional broadcast TV, and is fostered by the big and fast-growing inroads of internet and over-the-top (‟OTT”) video platforms such as Netflix, Amazon and Google’s YouTube.

              Shaken at its core, a wave of consolidation is subsequently coming to the entertainment content delivery industry, with Netflix ready to snatch up any shaky yet prestigious film studio that comes along, such as Luc Besson’s EuropaCorp studio. Not only does the studio Besson co-founded in 1999 has a rich and high quality original content library and back catalogue (comprising Lucy, Taken, Le Grand Bleu, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, among others), but striking an exclusive direction and production deal with seminal and highly creative Besson would reinforce the prestige of Netflix, while making the platform even more appealing to European, and Asian audiences, in particular.

              I predict that, should the right opportunity comes along, Netflix will repeat this vertical expansion masterstroke and acquire more major and/or independent studios.

              It is true that vertical expansion has boundaries, in particular due to the anti-competitive risks that it entails, and that the issue of vertical integration in the entertainment business has been the main focus of policy makers since the 1920s. For example, in the United States v Paramount Pictures Inc. case, the US Supreme court ordered on 3 May 1948 that the five vertically integrated major studios, MGM, Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and RKO, which not only produced and distributed films but also operated their own movie theatres, sell all their theatre chains. However, today, many media conglomerates already own television broadcasters (either over-the-air or on cable), the production companies that produce content for their networks, and also own the services that distribute their content to viewers (such as television and internet service providers). Bell Canada, Comcast, Sky plc and Roger Communications are vertically integrated in such a manner – operating media subsidiaries and providing ‟triple play” services on television, internet and phone services in some markets. Additionally, Bell and Rogers own wireless providers, Bell Mobility and Rogers Wireless, while Comcast is partnered with Verizon Wireless. Similarly, Sony has media holdings through its Sony Pictures division, including film and television content, as well as television channels, but is also a manufacturer of consumer electronics that can be used to consume content from itself and others, including televisions, phones and PlayStation video game consoles.

              In this context, it is quite difficult imagining Netflix slapped with any anti-competition lawsuits or investigations, because it goes on a buying spree of film studios, even one of the ‟Big Six” majors.

              4. Masterstroke of Netflix’s vertical integration plan: broadcasting networks and theatre chains

              The next stage of Netflix’s vertical integration and expansion strategy, in addition to buying, producing and commissioning its own content, and in addition to acquiring film studios, is to delve into distributing its own content in the ‟real” world (i.e. offline sphere), either on other media distribution channels such as a broadcasting network, or in movie theatres.

              I predict that, in 10 years, if TV is still a medium used by consumers, Netflix will have its own TV channels and broadcasting networks. In the future, if people still attend movie theatres from time to time, to watch special effects films there in particular, Netflix will also invest in buying back fledging exhibitors’ chains, causing direct competition to China’s Dalian Wanda-owned cinema group which is currently on a buying spree of theatre chains across Europe and the US.

              This ‟online to offline strategy” is currently being implemented with brio by originally pure player Amazon, which is currently buying brick and mortar retail spaces all other the world, in order to continue its competitive assaults on traditional grocery stores and malls, increase its market share and get closer to its clients’ base worldwide. Amazon is at a way more mature growth point than Netflix, of course, but provides excellent footprint of the future roadmap that Netflix is undoubtedly going to implement.

              5. No space for Apple in Netflix’s vertical integration strategy

              Some commentators in the entertainment and finance industries pretend that Apple will buy Netflix but this is an oversight.

              Firstly, Netflix has zilch incentive to accept an acquisition offer, even from a tech behemoth like Apple, because it is in such a strong strategical and financing position, and will be in that sweet spot for many more years to come in spite of its lesser-known SVoD competitors, such as Amazon Prime, Hulu and Vudu, tagging along.

              Secondly, and thanks to such solid said vertical integration strategy and financials, Netflix’s valuation is simply too high, now. It is trading at all-time highs, with a USD94 billion market cap.

              Thirdly, co-founder Reed Hastings, who still very much keeps a tight rein on Netflix as its chairman and CEO and enjoys the ride, is unlikely to sell his business at a meagre premium of 6 percent or so (USD100 billion).

              Finally, Apple’s specialty and strength lie in its hardware and products, not so much in its software and services (apart, perhaps, from Apple’s video editing software, Final Cut Pro): the integration of Netflix into Apple will reinforce the latter’s positioning as a serious software and online applications’ provider, but will do absolutely nothing for the former’s vertical integration strategy, which now charges ahead towards film studios’ acquisitions, broadcasting networks’ acquisitions and theatre chains’ acquisitions.



              Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




                Your name (required)

                Your email (required)

                Subject

                Your message

                captcha


                1 Comment »

                How to make your creative business compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

                Crefovi : 16/10/2017 8:00 am : Antitrust & competition, Articles, Capital markets, Consumer goods & retail, Emerging companies, Employment, compensation & benefits, Entertainment & media, Gaming, Hospitality, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Law of luxury goods, Life sciences, Litigation & dispute resolution, Mergers & acquisitions, Music law, Outsourcing, Private equity & private equity finance, Product liability, Real estate, Restructuring, Tax, Technology transactions

                The General Data Protection Regulation (‟GDPR”) is upon us: what is it? How is it going to impact you and your business? What do you need to do in order to become GDPR compliant? There is not a moment to waste, as the stakes are very high, and since becoming GDPR compliant will definitely bring competitive advantages to your business.

                GDPR

                On 27 April 2016, after more than 4 years of discussion and negotiation, the European parliament and council adopted the General Data Protection Regulation (‟GDPR”).

                1. Why the GDPR?

                The GDPR repeals Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regards to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (the ‟Directive”).

                The Directive, which entered into force more than 20 years’ ago, was no longer fit for purpose, as the amount of digital information businesses create, capture and store has vastly increased.

                Data, the bigger the better, is here to stay. Today’s data more and more greases our digital world. Control of data is ultimately about power and data ownership does seriously impact competition on any given market. By collecting more data, a firm has more scope to improve its products, which attracts more users, generating even more data, and so on. Data assets are, today, at least as important as other intangible assets such as trademarks, copyright, patents and designs, to companies[1]. The stakes are way higher, today, as far as data ownership, control and processing are concerned, and GDPR addresses that data flow in the 21st century, as we all engage with technology, more and more.

                Moreover, many legal cases, brought up in various member-states of the European Union (‟EU”), pinpointed the severe weaknesses and gaps in providing satisfactory, strong and homogeneous protection of personal data, relating to EU citizens, and controlled by companies and businesses operating in the EU. For example, the Costeja v Google judgment, from the Court of Justice of the European Union (‟CJEU”), commonly referred to as the ‟right to the forgotten” ruling, was handed down on 26 November 2014. This ground-breaking judgment recognised that search engine operators, such as Google, process personal data and qualify as data controllers within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive. As such, the CJEU ruling recognised that a data subject may ‟request (from a search engine) that the information (relating to him/her personally) no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in (…) a list of results”. Through this decision, the CJEU forced search engines such as Google to remove, when requested, URL links that are ‟inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed”. It was a huge step forward for personal data protection in the EU.

                In addition, data breaches at, and cyber-attacks of, thousands of international businesses (Sony Pictures, Yahoo, Linkedin, Equifax, etc.) as well as EU national companies (Talktalk, etc.) make the news, consistently and on a very regular basis, dramatically affecting the financial and moral well being of millions of consumers whose personal data was hacked because of these data breaches. These attacks and breaches raise very serious concerns as to whether businesses managing personal data of EU consumers are actually “up to scratch”, in terms of proactively fighting against cyber-crime and protecting personal data.

                Finally, the GDPR, which will be immediately enforceable in the 28 member-states of the EU without any transposition from 25 May 2018, unlike the Directive which had to be transposed in each EU member-state by way of national rules, standardises all national laws applicable in these member-states and therefore provides more uniformity across them. The GDPR levels the playing field.

                2. When will the GDPR enter into force?

                The GDPR, adopted in April 2016, enters into force on 25 May 2018, ideally giving a 2-year preparation period to businesses and public bodies to adapt to the changes.

                While many EU business owners take the view that the changes brought by the GDPR onto their businesses, will be of little or no importance or just as important as other compliance issues, there is not a minute to spare to prepare for  compliance with the new set of complex and lengthy rules set out in the GDPR.

                3. What is at stake? Which organisations are impacted by the GDPR?

                A lot is at stake. All businesses, organisations or entities which operate in the EU or which are headquartered outside of the EU but collect, hold or process personal data of EU citizens must be GDPR compliant by 25 May 2018. Potentially, the GDPR may apply to every website and application on a global basis.

                As most if not all multinationals have customers, employees and/or business partners in the EU, they must become GDPR compliant. Even start-ups and SMEs must be GDPR compliant, if their business model infer that they will collect, hold or process personal data of EU citizens (i.e. customers, prospects, employees, contractors, suppliers, etc).

                The stakes are very high for most businesses and, for many companies, it is becoming a board-level conversation and issue.

                To ensure compliance with the new legal framework for data protection, and the implementation of the new provisions, the GDPR introduced an enforcement regime of very heavy financial sanctions to be imposed on businesses that do not comply with it. If an organisation does not process EU individuals’ data in the correct way, it can be fined, up to 4 percent of its annual worldwide turnover, or Euros 20 million – whichever is greater[2].

                These future fines are way larger than the GBP500,000 capped penalty the UK Data Protection Authority (‟DPA”), the Information Commissioner Office (‟ICO”), or the maximum 300,000 Euros capped penalty that the French DPA, the ‟Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés” (‟CNIL”), can currently inflict on businesses.

                4. What are the GDPR provisions about?

                The GDPR provides 99 articles setting out the rights of individuals and obligations placed on organisations within the scope of the GDPR.

                Compared to the Directive, here are the new key concepts brought by the GDPR.

                4.1. Privacy by design

                The principle of ‟privacy by design” means that businesses must take a proactive and preventive approach in relation to the protection of privacy and personal data. For example, a business that limits the quantity of data collected, or anonymises such data, does comply with the ‟privacy by design” principle.

                This obligation of ‟privacy by design” implies that businesses must integrate – by all appropriate technical means – the security of personal data at the inception of their applications or business procedures.

                4.2. Accountability

                Accountability means that the data controller, as well as the data processor, must take appropriate legal, organisational and technical measures allowing them to comply with the GDPR. Moreover, data controllers and data processors must be able to demonstrate the execution of such measures, in all transparency and at any given point in time, both to their respective DPAs and to the natural persons whose data has been treated by them.

                These measures must be proportionate to the risk, i.e. the prejudice that would be caused to EU citizens, in case of inappropriate use of their data.

                In order to know whether a business is compliant, it is therefore necessary to execute an audit of the data processes made by such company. We, at Crefovi, often execute some audits certified by the CNIL or the ICO.

                4.3. Privacy impact Assessment

                The business in charge of treating and processing personal data, as well as its subcontractors, must execute an analysis, a Privacy Impact Assessment (‟PIA”) relating to the protection of personal data.

                Businesses must do a PIA, a privacy risk assessment, on their data assets, in order to track and map risks inherent to each data process and treatment put in place, according to their plausibility and seriousness. Next to those risks, the PIA sets out the list of organisational, IT, physical and legal measures implemented to address and minimise these risks. The PIA aims at checking the adequacy of such measures and, if these measures fail that test, at determining proportionate measures to address those uncovered risks and to ensure the business becomes GDPR compliant.

                Crefovi supports companies in performing PIAs and in checking the efficiency of the security and protection measures, thanks to the execution of intrusion tests.

                4.4. Data Protection Officer

                The GDPR requires that a Data Protection Officer (‟DPO”) be appointed, in order to ensure the compliance of treatment of personal data by public administrations and businesses which data treatments present a strong risk of breach of privacy. The DPO is the spokesperson of the organisation in relation to personal data: he or she is the ‟go to” point of contact, for the DPA, in relation to data processing compliance, but also for individuals whose data has been collected, so that they can exercise their rights.

                In addition to holding the prerogatives of the ‟correspondant informatique et liberté” (‟CIL”) in France, or chief privacy officer in the UK, the DPO must inform his/her interlocutors of any data breaches which may arise in the organisation, and analyse their impact.

                4.5. Profiling

                Profiling is an automated processing of personal data allowing the construction of complex information about a particular person, such as her preferences, productivity at work or her whereabouts.

                This type of data processing can generate automated decision-making, which may trigger legal consequences, without any human intervention. In this way, profiling constitutes a risk to civil liberties. This is why those businesses doing profiling must limit its risks and guarantee the rights of individuals subjected to such profiling, in particular by allowing them to request human intervention and/or contest the automated decision.

                4.6. Right to be forgotten

                As explained above, the right to be forgotten allows an individual to avoid that information about his/her past interferes with his/her actual life. In the digital world, that right encompasses the right to erasure as well as the right to dereferencing. On the one hand, the person can have potentially harmful content erased from a digital network, and, on the other hand, the person can dissociate a keyword (such as her first name and family name) from certain web pages on a search engine.

                Crefovi can support and advise a business facing a request of execution of the right to be forgotten.

                4.7. Other individuals’ rights

                The GDPR supplements the right to be forgotten by firmly putting EU citizens back in control of their personal data, substantially reinforcing the consent obligation to data processing, as well as citizens’ rights (right to access data, right to rectify data, right to limit data processing, right to data portability and right to oppose data processing), and information obligations by businesses about citizens’ rights.

                5. Is there a silver lining to the GDPR?

                5.1. An opportunity to manage those precious data assets

                Compliance with GDPR should be viewed by businesses as an opportunity, as much as an obligation: with data being ever more important in an organisation today, this is a great opportunity to take stock of what data your company has, and how you can get most advantage of it.

                The key tenet of GDPR is that it will give you the ability to find data in your organisation that is highly sensitive and high value, and ensure that it is protected adequately from risks and data breaches.

                5.2. Lower formalities and one-stop DPA

                Moreover, the GDPR withdraws the obligation of prior declaration to one’s DPA, before any data processing, and replaces these formalities with mandatory creation and management of a data processing register.

                In addition, the GDPR sets up a one-stop DPA: in case of absence of a specific national legislation, a DPA located in the EU member-state in which the organisation has its main or unique establishment will be in charge of controlling compliance with the GDPR.

                Businesses will determine their respective DPA with respect to the place of establishment of their management functions as far as supervision of data processing is concerned, which will allow to identify the main establishment, including when a sole company manages the operations of a whole group.

                This unique one-stop DPA will allow companies to substantially save time and money by simplifying their processes.

                5.3. Unified regulation, easier data transfers

                In order to favour the European data market and the digital economy, and therefore create a favourable economic environment, the GDPR reinforces the protection of personal data and civil liberties.

                This unified regulation will allow businesses to substantially reduce the costs of processing data currently incurred in the 28 EU member-states: organisations will no longer have to comply with multiple national regulations for the collection, harvesting, transfer and storing of data that they use.

                Moreover, since data will comply with legislations applicable in all EU countries, it will become possible to exchange it and it will have the same value in different countries, while currently data has different prices depending on the legislation it complies with, as well as different costs for the companies that collect it.

                5.4. A geographical scope extended by fair competition

                The scope of the GDPR extends to companies which are headquartered outside the EU, but intend to market goods and services in the EU market, as long as they put in place processes and treatments of personal data relating to EU citizens. Following these residents on internet, in order to create some profiles, is also covered by the GDPR scope.

                Therefore, European companies, subjected to strict, and potentially expensive, rules, will not be penalised by international competition on the EU single market. In addition, they may buy from non-EU companies some data which is compliant with GDPR provisions, therefore making the data market wider.

                5.5. Opening digital services to competition

                The right to portability of data will allow EU citizens subjected to data treatment and processing to gather this data in an exploitable format or to transfer such data to another data controller if this is technically possible.

                This way, the client will be able to change digital services provider (email, pictures, etc.) without having to manually retrieve all the data, during a fastidious and time-consuming process. By lifting such technical barriers, the GDPR makes the market more fluid, and offers to users enhanced digital mobility. Digital services providers will therefore evolve in a more competitive market, inciting them in providing better priced and higher quality services, as their clients will no longer be hostages to their initial provider.

                5.6. Labels and certifications

                The European committee on data protection, as well as EU institutions, will propose some certifications and labels in order to certify compliance with the GDPR of data processes performed by businesses.

                Cashable recognition and true asset for the brand image of a company, labels and certifications will also become a strong commercial tool in order to gain prospects’ trusts and to win their loyalty.

                6. What are the actionable steps to take, right now, to become GDPR compliant?

                There is not a moment to lose to implement the following steps, below:

                • decide on the ownership of implementing the GDPR provisions in your organisation; assign ownership to the best suited department or team (Legal? Compliance? Technology?);
                • liaise with your one-stop DPA, as several of them have prepared useful explanatory information or guidance to comply with GDPR, such as the ICO in the UK, the CNIL in France and the Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland (the latter being the DPA of many a digital giant, such as Google, Facebook and Twitter);
                • draft a map of the data processes in your organisation, and identify the gaps in GDPR compliance in relation to these various processes – we, at Crefovi, have drafted some detailed documents on how to make this mapping of data processes and treatments and to support you on identifying the gaps in GDPR compliance;
                • value the various data processes and treatments and assess which ones are high risk and make a list of your high-risk data assets;
                • execute a PIA on those high-risk data assets (such as Human resources’ data, customers’ data) – Crefovi supports companies in performing PIAs and in checking the efficiency of the security and protection measures, thanks to the execution of intrusion tests;
                • implement legal, technical, organisational and physical measures to lower risks on those data assets and become GDPR compliant;
                • ensure that your contractors and subcontractors have put compliant security measures in place, by sending them a list of points to check;
                • do privacy awareness training for your employees as they must understand that personal data is anything that can be linked directly to an individual and that there will be some consequences if they break the GDPR provisions and steal personal data;
                • develop a Bring Your Own Device policy (‟BYOD”) and enforce it within your organisation and among your employees, since you are accountable for all data user information stored in the cloud and accessible from both corporate devices (tablets, smartphones, laptops) and personal devices. Also, when employees leave or are terminated, make sure that you have included BYOD in your off-boarding process, so that leaving staff lose access to company confidential data immediately on their devices;
                • check and/or redraft the information notices or confidentiality policies in order that they set out the new information required by the GDPR;
                • put in place automated mechanisms in order to obtain explicit consent from EU citizens, especially if your business deals with behavioural data collection, behavioural advertising or any other form of profiling;
                • put in place a solid management plan in case personal data breaches happen, which will allow you to comply with the mandatory requirement to notify your DPA within 72 hours – our in-depth experience of alert, risk management, analytical and notification plans, in France and the United Kingdom, put us, at Crefovi, in a great position to support our clients to prepare for the demanding requirements set out in the GDPR.

                [1] ‟The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data”, The economist, 6 May 2017.

                [2] ‟Preparing for the general data protection regulation: a roadmap to the key changes introduced by the new European data protection regime”, Alexandra Varla, 2017.



                Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




                  Your name (required)

                  Your email (required)

                  Subject

                  Your message

                  captcha


                  Leave a response »

                  Copyright in the digital era: how the creative industries can cash in

                  Crefovi : 14/06/2017 8:00 am : Antitrust & competition, Articles, Copyright litigation, Emerging companies, Employment, compensation & benefits, Entertainment & media, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Litigation & dispute resolution, Mergers & acquisitions, Music law, Outsourcing, Restructuring, Technology transactions

                  Why authors, songwriters, composers, music publishers, movie producers, scriptwriters as well as digital service providers have everything to win in finding a consensus on copyright in the digital era.

                  Copyright in the digital eraBack in July 2015, I wrote a detailed article on neighbouring rights in the digital era and how the music industry may cash in on this exponentially expanding source of income.

                  Two years down the line, and further to attending the 2017 Cannes Film Festival and Midem, I am convinced that the dominance of digital distribution channels, and streaming in particular, is accelerating in the creative industries.

                  Focus 2017, the report on world film market trends published by the Marché du Film at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival, notes that, while films available on transactional Video On Demand (‟TVOD”, such as iTunes) and subscription VOD (‟SVOD”, such as Netflix or Amazon Prime) are on the rise, there are still barriers to release on VOD in Europe. The main obstacle being the perception that the level of revenues from VOD exploitation is still low, with 80 percent of revenues generated by 20 percent of films as well as high marketing costs. Another hurdle to full scale development of VOD services is the legal protectionism that some countries, such as France with its ‟cultural exception”, put in place to limit the disruptions that any blatant financial and commercial success of digital service providers would trigger, towards local theatres, national exhibitors, locally-made film productions and the local public.

                  Be that as it may, such obstacles will not pass the test of time and will be swept away by the sheer force of consumers’ demands and expectations, driven by a more tailored, user-friendly and personalised approach to consuming audio or video content, at any point in time, in any geographical location and on any device.

                  Already, the music sector, which has always been the creative industry the most quickly affected and disrupted by the digital revolution, is much more attuned to the potentialities of streaming and adapting its own business model in order to monetise such digital revolution for the benefit of all stakeholders involved. For example, the largest digital music service provider, Spotify, confirmed that it had over 140 million active users worldwide, in June 2017, up from the 100 million figure that was declared a year ago.

                  At Midem 2017, much talk was made about transparency, fair remuneration, the value gap, to sensibilise Midem attendees and the music business in general, to the needs of including copyright owners in this digital success story. Indeed, how can such supply chain of great audio content work, if copyright owners (i.e. publishers, songwriters, composers) feel disenfranchised and left out of the commercial and financial boon represented by streaming? They will just refuse to keep their songs on digital services providers’ platforms, such as Spotify, Apple Music and Deezer, if they do not get well compensated for such use, potentially crippling the expansion of audio digital distribution channels in the process.

                  As I had promised I would do, in my earlier article on neighbouring rights, I now turn my attention to how deals are done with digital service providers, in the streaming arena, in relation to the licensing aspects of copyright, in particular performance rights for right owners in the musical composition (as opposed to the sound recording). Here, we focus only on copyright and the situation of right owners in songs and musical compositions – typically, songwriters, composers, music publishers – in films – typically, scriptwriters, film producers – and in books – typically, authors and press publishers.

                  1. Getting to grips with copyright in the digital era

                  Copyright was consecrated by law, step by step, in order to ensure that people who  create, author and/or produce original content or work (such as authors, writers, composers, songwriters and artists) have exclusive rights for its use and distribution.

                  Copyright came about with the invention of the printing press and was established first in Britain, as a reaction to printers’ monopolies at the beginning of the 18th century. The English parliament was concerned about the unregulated copying of books and passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662, which established a register of licensed books and required a copy to be deposited with the Stationers’ Company, thus continuing the licensing of material that had long been in effect.

                  Copyright has grown from a legal concept regulating copying rights in the publishing of books and maps to one with a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, covering such items as songs, films, photographs, artworks, architectural works, software, etc.

                  Such exclusive rights granted to content creators are usually for a limited time (in most jurisdictions, the author’s life plus 70 years after the death of the author) and may be limited by exceptions to copyright law, such as fair use in the USA and fair dealing in the UK and Canada. Also, copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves, which is referred to as the ‟idea-expression dichotomy”.

                  Copyright frequently includes reproduction, control over derivative works, distribution, public performance, transfer of these rights to others, and moral rights, such as attribution.

                  Copyrights are considered territorial rights, which means that they do not extend beyond the territory of a specific jurisdiction. However, the geographical scope of copyright has been extended thanks to international copyright agreements, such as the 1886 Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works. The Berne Convention introduced the concept that a copyright exists the moment the work is “fixed”, rather than requiring any registration: under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted, declared or registered, as they are automatically in force at creation. The Berne Convention also enforces a requirement that countries recognise copyrights held by the citizens of all other parties to the convention. Therefore, foreign authors are treated in the same way than domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Berne Convention. The regulations of the Berne Convention are incorporated into the World Trade Organisation’s TRIPS agreement (1995), thus giving the Berne Convention effectively near-global application. These multilateral treaties have been ratified by nearly all countries, and international organisations such as the European Union (‟EU”) or World Trade Organisation require their member-states to comply with them.

                  Since works protected by copyright are consumed more and more online, on digital channels (VOD for video content and streaming and downloads for audio content), a new challenge has arisen to ensure that copyright owners can monetise the exploitation of their works online.

                  At the EU level, a whole legal framework has been put in place, in order to protect copyright within the 28 member-states and in the digital world. For example, the directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright in the information society (2001/29/EC) strives to adapt legislation on copyright to reflect technological developments, while the directive 2006/115/EC harmonises the provisions relating to rental and lending rights of works subject to copyright. However, it is mainly the directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright (the ‟CRM directive”) that reshaped the EU legal framework towards more efficiency in monetising copyright in the digital era.

                  2. Collecting societies, music copyright and the CRM directive: a step in the right direction for EU right owners

                  A copyright collecting society, also called copyright collective, copyright collecting agency or licensing agency, is a body created by copyright law or private agreement which engages in collective rights management. Collecting societies have the authority to license works protected by copyright and collect royalties as part of compulsory licensing or individual licenses negotiated on behalf of their respective members. Collecting societies collect royalty payments from users of copyrighted works and distribute royalties back to copyright owners.

                  Collecting societies are organisations handling the outsourcing function of right management. Copyright owners transfer to collecting societies rights to:

                  • grant non-exclusive licenses;
                  • collect royalties on their behalf;
                  • distribute such collected royalties back to them;
                  • enter into reciprocal arrangements with other collecting societies around the world and
                  • enforce their rights.

                  To understand the role of collective rights management societies, we first need to talk about performing rights. Performing rights represent the greatest source of continuing royalty income. Throughout the world, writers and publishers receive in the area of USD6 billion in royalties each year, from performance rights. The performing right is a right of copyright which applies to the payment of licence fees by music users, when those users perform the copyrighted musical compositions of writers and publishers. This right recognises that a writer’s creation is a property right and that its use requires permission as well as compensation. For example, performances can be songs heard on the radio, underscores in a TV series or music performed live or on tape at a show, an amusement park, a sporting event, a major concert venue, a jazz club or a symphonic concert hall. Performances can be music on hold on a telephone or music channels on an airplane, or digital service providers such as Spotify and Apple Music.

                  Collecting societies also negotiate license fees for public performance and reproduction and act as lobbying interests groups. They grant blanket licences (i.e. they grant rights on behalf of multiple rights holders in a single blanket licence for a single payment), which grant the right to perform their catalogue for a period of time.

                  Music users (those that pay the license fees) include the major TV networks, radio stations, pay cable services, digital service providers, websites, concert halls, the hotel industry, nightclubs, bars, theme parks, etc.

                  Copyright holders will join a collecting society as members and instruct it to license rights on their behalf. The collecting society charges a fee for the licence, from which it deducts an administrative charge before distributing the remainder in royalties. Collecting societies are typically not for profit organisations and are owned and controlled by their members, the right holders.

                  Most countries in the world have only one collective music rights management society (SACEM in France, SIAE in Italy, PRS in the UK) but the USA have decided to have three organisations, in order to avoid monopolistic and anti-competitive behaviour. Therefore, ASCAP competes with BMI and SESAC, with 96 percent of the licence fees in performance rights being generated by either ASCAP or BMI in the USA.

                  For many years, collective rights management societies had a quiet life, apart in the USA where ASCAP, BMI and SESAC fiercely compete with each other, in order to get the best catalogues and music hits in their respective roster.

                  However, around 2008, quite a few European collective rights management societies were facing serious performance issues, compounded by a highly protective attitude towards other European societies, and an inability to cope with the changes in the way music is getting increasingly distributed online, on the internet.

                  On 16 July 2008, the European Commission adopted a decision (the ‟CISAC decision”) prohibiting 24 European collecting societies from restricting competition as regards to the conditions for the management and licensing of authors’ public performance for musical works. The collecting societies were found to have restricted the services they offered to authors and commercial users outside their domestic territory. While the CISAC decision made it easier for authors to select which collecting societies would manage their public performance rights (for example, an Italian author would become able to license his rights to PRS in the UK or SACEM in France), it was deemed to not be enough in order to force European collective rights management societies to make the necessary changes to open themselves up to the market.

                  Therefore, European institutions stepped up their game and, further to a proposal for a directive on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses, published on 11 July 2012, the EU adopted the CRM directive, the directive 2014/26/EU on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses.

                  Consequently, in the EU, the conduct of collecting societies is now governed by national regulations which implemented the CRM directive in the 28 member-states by the transposition date of 10 April 2016. Further to the entry into force of the CRM directive on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, fairer competition – as well as sound collaboration – have at last arisen between all EU-based collecting societies.

                  The CRM directive aims to fulfil the following objectives:

                  • modernise and improve governance, financial management and transparency of the EU collecting societies, in particular ensuring that right holders have more say in the decision making process and receive royalty payments that are accurate and on time;
                  • promote a level playing field for multi-territorial licensing of online music and
                  • help create innovative and dynamic licensing structures that encourage the development of legitimate online music services.

                  EU collecting societies that grant multi-territorial licenses are now required to have ‟sufficient capacity” to process efficiently and in a transparent manner the data needed to administer multi-territorial licenses. ‟Sufficient capacity” includes at least capacity to invoice users, collect rights revenue and distribute amounts to rights holders. Also, EU collecting societies must, in response to a ‟duly justified” request from service providers, rights holders or other societies, provide up-to-date information regarding their online repertoire. Both these requirements are challenges to many EU collecting societies, as timely and accurate invoicing has never been a strong feature of collective licensing in Europe.

                  For digital service providers that wish to allow users to access easily a vast library of online content, the ability to obtain multi-territorial licenses is the critical factor in enabling service of a pan-European user-base. At a time where digital service providers are not only squeezed by labels, but pressured by authors and publishers to increase royalties, it is not yet clear whether the national transposition regulations of the CRM directive will go far enough to protect digital service providers’ interests.

                  At least, EU collecting societies are now embarking themselves into pan-European licensing collaborations such as ICE (an online music rights licensing and processing hub formed by three of the EU largest collection societies, PRS (UK), STIM (Sweden) and GEMA (Germany)) and Armonia (another online music rights licensing and processing hub formed by SACEM (France), SGAE (Spain), SIAE (Italy), SACEM Luxembourg,  SABAM (Belgium), SUISA (Switzerland), AKM (Austria), SPA (Portugal), Artisjus (Hungary)) which both received clearance from the European Commission to enable faster and simplified rights negotiations for digital service providers operating in the EU. In May 2016, ICE signed its first license deal in the digital market place, partnering with Google Play Music.

                  3. The master stroke: copyright and the EU digital single market

                  In July 2014, ahead of his European Commission presidency, Jean-Claude Juncker published his political guidelines for a new Europe. Central to his agenda was a connected Digital Single Market (‟DSM”), which triggered proposed EU legislation aimed at making the most out of digital technologies, and at the removal of restrictions to free movement of digital goods and services. Among the reforms, were changes to telecoms regulations (the end of mobile phone roaming charges), data protection (approval of the General Data Protection Regulation) and EU copyright laws.

                  The EU copyright reforms, in particular, are highly ambitious with a series of key proposals announced by the European Commission in September 2016:

                  • a EU regulation facilitating broadcasters by requiring only country of origin clearance for ancillary online services (for example, simulcasts, music, e-books, games or catch-up services) which are available across the EU, which was adopted on 8 June 2017;
                  • a EU directive and a EU regulation to implement the Marrakesh Treaty: the former providing a mandatory exception to facilitate access to published copyrighted works for people who are blind, visually impaired or print disabled, and the latter permitting the cross-border exchange of copies between the EU and other countries that are party to the Treaty, and
                  • a proposal for a EU directive on copyright in the DSM (the ‟DSM proposal”).

                  The key provisions of the DSM proposal include:

                  • providing rights of fair remuneration in contracts for authors and performers;
                  • creation of an ancillary right for press publishers;
                  • obligation on online service providers (social networks, platforms, etc) to take measures to prevent infringement;
                  • new mandatory exceptions to infringement, and
                  • facilitating the use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions.

                  The DSM proposal aims at reducing the differences between national copyright regimes and allowing for wider online access to copyrighted works by users across the EU. It recognises that, despite the fact that digital technologies should facilitate cross-border access to works, obstacles remain, in particular for uses and works where clearance of rights is complex.

                  As regards audiovisual works, the DSM proposal sets out, despite the growing importance of VOD platforms, EU audiovisual works only constitute one third of works available to consumers on those platforms! Again, this lack of availability partly derives from a complex clearance process. The DSM proposal therefore provides for measures aiming at facilitating the licensing and clearance of rights process, to ultimately facilitate consumers’ cross-border access to copyright-protected content.

                  In particular, the DSM proposal provides for fair remuneration in contracts of authors and performers, in its articles 14 to 16. Since authors and performers often have a weak bargaining position when licensing their rights, the DSM proposal sets out a ‟transparency obligation” whereby member-states will be required to ensure that authors and performers shall have the right to information about the exploitation of their works. The obligation may be adjusted where it is disproportionate or disapplied where the contribution of the author is not significant. The provisions go on to provide a ‟contract adjustment mechanism” so that authors and performers can request additional remuneration from the party with whom they contracted when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low to the subsequent revenues and benefits derived from exploitation of the works or performances. Member-states are also required to provide a voluntary, alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The EU parliament proposes two small amendments: recognising rights to equitable remuneration, and providing authors and performers with the option to appoint representatives for seeking contract adjustments on their behalf.

                  Another reform set out in article 11 of the DSM proposal, aiming at efficiently monetising copyright in the digital era, is the ancillary right for press publishers. The European commission has said the proposed right aims to address the difficulties faced by press publishers in licensing their publications online: the problem comes from recouping their investment as against those who reproduce their content online for free. Article 11 of the DSM proposal strives to fight this problem by requiring member-states to provide ‟publishers of press publications” with rights to control the ‟reproduction” and ‟making available to the public” rights that are available to authors. This ancillary right is intended to last for twenty years from January 1 in the year following the press publication. A ‟press publication” is defined as a ‟fixation of a collection” of journalistic literary works. Similar laws have been introduced in Germany and Spain and it has been reported that these have led to delisting of press publications on news sites, resulting in reduced traffic to publishers’ own sites.

                  The European Commission proposes to address the so-called ‟value gap” between licensed streaming services, which pay for the content they host, and intermediaries, such as social media networks (Facebook) and online platforms (YouTube), which host infringing content. The e-commerce EU directive provides a ‟safe harbour” defence to these intermediaries, with a notice and take-down regime. However, rather than make amendments to the e-commerce EU directive, article 13 of the DSM proposal sets out that ‟information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works uploaded by their users shall, in co-operation with right holders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with right holders for the use of their works or to prevent the availability on their services of works identified by rightholders through the cooperation with service providers”. The European Commission suggests that such measures may include the use of content-recognition technologies. This article 13 seems at odds with the e-commerce EU directive, its safe harbour provisions and the assurance of no obligation to monitor information transmitted or stored. Therefore, we can expect to see further discussion between the European commission and the EU parliament on how to properly address the ‟value gap”. One thing that is for sure is that music copyright owners, publishers in particular, are particularly irritated by existing safe harbour laws in place in the EU and the USA and want intermediaries to become fully accountable for the damage that infringement on their platforms causes to copyright owners.

                  Another notable reform brought by the DSM proposal is the improvement of licensing practices and wider access to content. The European commission puts forward measures to facilitate the digitisation and licensing of out of commerce works. These are works that are not available to the public through customary channels of commerce and which are often held by cultural heritage institutions. The purpose of these provisions is to provide wider access to these materials and to guarantee the cross-border effect of licensing agreements.

                  Let’s watch the space, as far as the DSM proposal is concerned, but it definitely constitutes a step in the right direction, in order to improve the monetisation of works protected by copyright in the EU single digital market.

                  4. Technological solutions to better monetisation of copyright in the digital era: a work in progress

                  Midem 2017 was a whirlwind of fancy technical propositions to tackle transparency, as well as efficient and accurate ways of paying royalties to copyright owners in the digital era.

                  The creation of a global database of musical copyrights and works was, yet again, envisaged, despite the fact that the Global Repertoire Database (‟GRD”) was a resounding failure in 2014 due to a lack of appropriate coordination between, and funding from, various stakeholders such as Universal, EMI Music Publishing, tech companies such as Apple, Nokia and Amazon and collecting societies such as PRS (UK), STIM (Sweden) and SACEM (France).

                  Other technical suggestions envisaged were the use of sophisticated rights administration and management software solutions such as Counterpoint, the standardisation of data such as streamlining ISWC codes, the improvement of metadata provided to digital service providers by music publishers and labels, and using blockchain to structure a new database, with streamlined ISWC codes and accelerate payment of royalties through smart contracts and bitcoins.

                  It seems to me that all these technical solutions, in particular the creation of a copyrights’ database and the implementation of clear ISWC codes and sets of metadata will only be implementable when their installation is coordinated by pan-European and mandatory regulations enforceable in the 28 member-states of the EU.

                  To conclude, while the interests of copyright owners are increasingly being looked after, thanks to both legal and technical processes and tools more adapted to the fluid changes triggered by new means of consumption of copyrighted works in the digital era, it still feels like it is a ‟touch-and-go” approach that is put in place here. Although both copyright owners and digital service providers have everything to win in increasing transparency and prompt collection of digital royalties, while substantially reducing the value gap which greatly benefits intermediaries protected by safe harbour, I am under the impression that they do not really communicate efficiently together and do not think that their interests are aligned.



                  Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




                    Your name (required)

                    Your email (required)

                    Subject

                    Your message

                    captcha


                    Leave a response »

                    How to remove links about dead people from Google? The right to be forgotten and the deceased

                    Crefovi : 18/03/2017 8:00 am : Articles, Copyright litigation, Employment, compensation & benefits, Information technology - hardware, software & services, Intellectual property & IP litigation, Internet & digital media, Litigation & dispute resolution, Technology transactions, Trademark litigation

                    What to do when a loved one has passed away and some degrading and/or intrusive written content, images or videos are posted on the internet, in relation to his or her death? How can the friends, family and heirs of such dead person re-establish an appropriate image and reputation of the deceased, on the virtual Far West that is the world wide web? How can one remove links about dead people from Google?

                    remove links about dead people from Google1. De-linking or de-listing: general facts and process

                    1.1. What is de-linking or de-listing?

                    De-linking, also called delisting, is the process of removing links to certain written/audio/video/photographic content available on the internet (the ‟Content”), from the results computed by search engine service providers, after some particular key words were set out in the search bar tool of such search engines. This is how to remove links about dead people from Google.

                    De-listing is a service which Google, as well as other search engines, can provide, either of its own accord, or after it has been forced to by court order.

                    De-linking must not be confused with the action of removing content from the internet by directly contacting the webmasters of the original websites which set out the Content.

                    Google being a search engine, it merely lists search results, and enables access to clickable links to the websites related to the key words one has entered into its search bar. Google, unlike webmasters of original websites, has no control over the content of the webpages which links it proposes to display. Thus, it would be useless to ask Google to have information removed from a webpage set out on a third party website.

                    1.2. What is the purpose of delisting?

                    Google is, by far, the most popular search engine in the world.

                    According to Net Marketshare, Google occupies 80.52 percent of the global search engine market. Most people rely on Google to find the Content they are looking for and to access web pages that interest them.

                    Therefore, simply having Google delist a URL link from its rankings makes that Content much harder to find by web users. The Content will be nearly impossible to find by accident, and still quite hard to find even when looking for it specifically.

                    1.3. How to send delisting requests to Google?

                    While there is no legal obligation to do so, it may be wise to, as a first step of the de-linking process, contact the webmasters of the third party websites displaying the Content you would like to have removed.

                    In most cases, this step is unfortunately frustratingly ineffective since many webmasters and websites’ publishers will either not even reply or refuse to remove the Content in question from their website.

                    If you have attempted to contact the webmaster and publisher of the third party website in vain, your next step would then be to make a request to the search engine Google to have the URL links, linking to the infringing Content, removed from its search listings, so that, even though the Content remains on the internet, web users will not find it using Google search engine, Google Images, Google advance search or Google alerts.

                    If you have decided to not contact the webmasters and publishers of the Content directly first, as is your right, your first step would be to contact Google and request the removal of those links, as explained above.

                    While it is possible to exercise your right with search engine operators like Google using any adequate means, Google has made this relatively easy for you.

                    So, how to remove links about dead people from Google? Google created and listed some forms online, which can be filled out from its website.

                    There are two different Google forms:

                    • the ‟search removal request under data protection law in Europe” form : this form enables you to fill out a request to have Google delist information under European data protection laws. This form can be used by any European. However, a European living outside of Europe may not be able to use this form, according to Google’s guidelines.
                    • the ‟remove information from Google” form: this form allows you to fill out a request to have Google remove information concerning you from its search results, more generally. It is destined to European residents as well as non-European residents.

                    These forms require you to give the following information:

                    • the full name of the person whose data you want removed;
                    • your full name, if you are acting on behalf of someone else;
                    • your relationship to the person whose data is the object of the Google delisting request (for example, ‟parent”, ‟attorney”, etc.);
                    • a contact email address;
                    • the country under which law the request should be examined;
                    • the URLs you wish to see deleted from Google’s listings;
                    • some written explanations setting out why you want these URLs to be delisted (limited to approximately 500 characters, which, in practice, allows you to give very little explanation), and
                    • a scanned copy of the proof of identity of the person whose data you want removed.

                    1.4. Rates of success of delisting requests

                    Google deleted 345 million URL links in 2014, 558 million URL links in 2015 and 908 million URL links in 2016.

                    Although the number of deleted links has increased drastically from year to year, so has the number of delisting requests.

                    By March 2016, Google had received over 400,000 demands, examined over 1.4 million URL links, and removed 42.6 percent of the URL links for which they had received delisting requests.

                    However, the rate of deletions, compared to the number of demands, is now decreasing.

                    Is this because more and more people are making unreasonable delisting requests and/or because Google is becoming tougher in its selection process of those URL links that should be delisted?

                    2. Regulatory framework in Europe: the most ‟data subjects friendly” in the world

                    Regulations on data protection are, in the European Union, drafted by each member state separately, as of the date of this article.

                    2.1. The Costeja CJEU decision: the right to be forgotten established in the EU

                    This decision is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (‟CJEU”), adopted on 26 November 2014, commonly referred to as the ‟Right to be forgotten” ruling.

                    This groundbreaking judgment recognises that search engine operators, such as Google, process personal data and qualify as data controllers within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC.

                    Pursuant to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, data subjects shall be able to request delisting of URL links to Content deemed in breach of their fundamental rights (i.e. rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data).

                    The CJEU ruling recognises that a data subject may ‟request (from a search engine) that the information (relating to him/her personally) no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in (…) a list of results”. The Court then forces search engines such as Google to remove, when requested, URL links that are ‟inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed”.

                    If the search engines do not grant such delisting requests, data subjects may file a complaint with the European Data Protection Authorities (‟DPAs”), or the relevant judicial authority, of their respective European states. The DPAs will then examine the complaint, relating to the refusal or part-refusal to de-list the Content, using a list of common criteria. Indeed, a first analysis of the complaints so far received from data subjects whose delisting requests were refused by Google and other search engines, has enabled DPAs to establish a list of common criteria to be used by them to evaluate whether data protection law has been complied with. DPAs will assess complaints on a case-by-case basis, using criteria such as:

                    • Does the search result relate to a natural person – i.e. an individual? And does the search result come up against a search on the data subject’s name?
                    • Does the data subject play a role in public life? Is the data subject a public figure?
                    • Is the data subject a minor?
                    • Is the data accurate?
                    • Is the information sensitive within the meaning of Article 8 of the Directive 95/46/EC (i.e. it has a greater impact on the data subject’s private life than ‟ordinary” personal data, such as Content about a person’s health, sexuality or religious beliefs)?
                    • Is the data up to date? Is the data being made available for longer than is necessary for the purpose of the processing?
                    • Was the Content intended to be made public? Could the data subject have reasonably known that the Content would be made public?
                    • Does the data relate to a criminal offence?

                    The CJEU ruling was received, in particular in Great Britain and the USA, with criticism. A New York Times editorial stated that it ‟could undermine press freedoms and free speech”.

                    The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, an Independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, has analysed the CJEU judgment, and written some comprehensive guidelines to implement it. One of the most important points of these guidelines drafted to implement the CJEU ruling, is that when it is ruled that URL links should be removed from a search engine, or when a search engine accepts to remove URL links, the effect of this de-linking should be effective world wide, and not be limited only to the country extension (i.e. EU domains) where the demand was made. In practice, this means that in any case de-listing should also be effective on all relevant domains, including ‟.com”.

                    The CJEU decision is a huge step forward for personal data protection in Europe, since it reinforces a person’s right to control access to her personal data on the internet, and puts in place an acknowledged ‟right to be forgotten”.

                    So, how to remove links about dead people from Google? The CJEU ruling only relates to the protection of data and privacy of the living. Indeed, it specifies that the delisting request must be made by the person whose data is being displayed on the internet.

                    2.2. General Data Protection Regulation

                    The Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, entered into force on 24 May 2016 and shall only apply from 25 May 2018 (‟General Data Protection Regulation” or ‟GDPR”).

                    The GDPR enshrines in law the right to be forgotten set out in its Article 17. In compliance with its overarching goal of enabling data subjects to take control of their own data, the GDPR sets out the right to erasure (‟right to be forgotten”) which will enable data subjects to request data controllers (including search engines such as Google) to delete their data, if there are no legitimate grounds for their retention.

                    The innovation in the GDPR, compared to the existing regime set out in Directive 95/46/EC, is that currently data subjects only have the right to seek a court order to cease the data processing, when the latter causes damages, while the GDPR enables data subjects to bypass expensive and lengthy court intervention, by settling the issue directly with the data controller (including any search engine).

                    Since a data subject is broadly defined as ‟an identifiable natural person who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person” in the GDPR, it is worth checking whether such definition encompasses both living and dead persons.

                    In its ‟Considering  27”, the GDPR gives each member state the choice to extend the protection to dead people, or not. It sets out that ‟this Regulation does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons. Member states may provide for rules regarding the processing of personal data of deceased persons”.

                    Consequently some EU member states, such as France, chose to include the deceased in the definition of natural persons to whom the provisions of the GDPR will apply, while others, such as the United Kingdom, explicitly exclude the deceased from its rules (see below).

                    In this context of an imminent Brexit, and according to the UK DPA, which is called the Information Commissioner Office (‟ICO”), ‟the GDPR will apply in the UK from 25 May 2018 as the government has confirmed that the UK decision to leave the EU will not affect the commencement of the GDPR”, although there are still questions as to how the GDPR will apply once the UK leaves the EU.

                    Since the GDPR came into force in May 2016, most EU member states have already started to adapt their own internal regulations so as to conform to it.

                    2.3. UK Data Protection Act 1998

                    The Data Protection Act 1988 sets out the law relating to the protection of personal data in the United Kingdom.

                    It however clearly states, from the outset, that it does not apply to data of deceased persons. Indeed, in its Part I ‟Basic interpretative provisions”, the Data Protection Act 1998 states that ‟‟personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified”. This therefore excludes dead people.

                    The Data Protection Act 1998 will probably not be amended in the future, since the GDPR allows member states to limit their data protection laws to the living.

                    Therefore, the Data Protection Act 1988 and the UK DPA, the ICO, offer no solution for, or protection to, people wanting to see hurtful Content and links about their deceased family members, removed from search engines such as Google.

                    2.4. French ‟Loi informatique et libertés”

                    The French ‟Loi n°78-17 of 16 January 1978 relating to IT, databases and freedoms, commonly referred to as ‟Loi informatique et libertés”, is way more sympathetic towards family members and/or friends of a dead person facing such situation. Indeed, it sets out a whole section dedicated to deceased people.

                    The ‟Loi informatique et Libertés” was amended by the law n°2016-1321 of 7 October 2016, to take into account the new set of rules resulting from the upcoming GDPR.

                    Firstly, Article 40 of this law allows natural persons to request that a data controller modify personal data relating to them. This personal data can be rectified, completed, updated, locked or deleted if it is inexact, incomplete, equivocal, outdated, or if its collection, use, communication or conservation is forbidden.

                    Natural persons are therefore given a large amount of control over their personal data on the internet. However, the ‟Loi informatique et libertés” goes beyond, by granting rights over personal data relating to deceased persons.

                    Indeed, Article 40-1 of the ‟Loi informatique et libertés” sets out that ‟any person can set some guidelines relating to the conservation, withdrawal and communication of her personal data after her death”. Moreover, ‟when no such guidelines have been drafted by someone, his or her heirs can access personal data processors relating to such dead person, in order to identify and obtain communication of such data”. One of the advantages of this law is that it allows a person to give instructions as to what should be done with her personal online data after her death. The person can decide in advance the deletion, conservation or communication of her personal data after her death. It also gives rights to the person’s heirs to act even when the deceased person has left no instructions. Part III of this same Article 40-1 enables heirs of a deceased person to have data controllers take into account the death of this person, and to, in this respect, oppose the processing of the deceased person’s data, and to have such personal data removed or modified or updated.

                    So, how to remove links about dead people from Google? If Google refuses to grant the request to de-list some URL links that link to web pages setting out some infringing Content about a dead person, it may be well worth complaining to the French DPA, the ‟Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés” (‟CNIL”), that Google breached the provisions of the ‟Loi Informatique et Libertés”. As long as the search engine has a subsidiary in France, the CNIL will confirm that it is competent to examine such complaint made by an heir of the deceased person, even though such heir or deceased person are not French residents.

                    3. Regulatory framework in the USA: no protection for dead people so far

                     3.1. Basic regulations

                    In the USA, specific regulations vary from one state to another, but, there is a very clear common trait, in relation to data protection, which is that freedom of speech (i.e. the first amendment of the US constitution), outweighs a person’s right to control their own personal data.

                    With this in mind, it is clear that, when the personal data in question is that of a deceased person, the balance between privacy and freedom of speech is even more skewed towards the latter, in the USA.

                    3.2. The Nicole Castouras case

                    This outlook became entirely visible in the Nicole Castouras litigation case, which took place in Orange County, California, between 2006 and 2012.

                    Nicole Castouras, 19 years’ old, died on 31 October 2006, crashing her father’s Porsche, which she was not allowed to drive, into a concrete toll booth near the Alton Parkway interchange on the 241 Toll Road in California. Pictures of her dead body were leaked by the California Highway Patrol, the law enforcement agency in California which has patrol jurisdiction over all California highways and can also act as the state police. Those photographs were so gruesome they sparked an unhealthy curiosity from the general public and reposted thousands of times on the internet, going viral.

                    Nicole’s parents then started an extremely expensive and protracted legal battle, against search engine Google and the California Highway Patrol, which lasted for years. The Castouras family lost the case against Google, further to requesting that the search engine de-link the articles and Content containing the images. Their only victory was to reach a settlement with the California Highway Patrol, under which the family received around USD2.37 million in damages, caused by negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

                    How to remove links about dead people from Google, when based in the USA? As the right to be forgotten CJEU ruling and the GDPR provide that the delisting of the infringing URLs must be done on all domain name extensions, including the .com domain name, and although Google does not comply with this rule for the time being (see below), it may be worth for heirs of a deceased US citizen to file a complaint against Google with the French CNIL, as long as the infringing Content about the dead person is visible from France, on the internet.

                    4. The effects of a successful de-linking request

                    4.1. Only the URL links are de-listed from Google, the Content is not deleted

                    If Google accepts your request to have links removed (or if it is forced to do so by a DPA or by court order), this does not mean that the Content, to which those links lead, will be removed from the internet. The Content will remain exactly as it was, and you will still be able to find it on the world wide web.

                    However, this does not mean that it is useless to file delinking requests with Google. Delinking remains useful, since it makes the Content much harder to access and find. Indeed, delinking means that you will not be able to find the Content by looking for it on Google, since Google will have removed the URL links from its search results. It also means that members of the public who do not know about this Content that you want to hide, will never stumble across it while casually browsing the web.

                    Therefore, even though the Content remains online, only people who already knew about it and are prepared to spend a significant amount of time and resources to access it, will be able to find it, as they will need to go out of their way and use a search engine other than Google, to access the Content.

                    Of course, you may file several delisting requests with as many search engines as you want, not only Google. They will all have to comply with the case law set by the CJEU ruling and with the provisions of the GDPR on the right to be forgotten, by either granting such delisting requests, or by replying to you and explaining why they refuse to do so.

                    4.2. Country-specific/geolocalisation: a country specific limitation so far

                    For now, granting de-linking requests remains country-specific. That means that if Google has accepted, or was forced by court order to remove URL links, and that the delisting request was made in France, then only if you search on the French Google extension ‟Google.fr”, will you not be able to find those links. Indeed, if you take the time to also check ‟Google.com”, or any other country extension, then you will find the URL links to the Content. This means that the links will not be found by accident anymore, but they will still be easily available to members of the public actively searching for them.

                    The above-mentioned Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, the European working group that wrote guidelines for the implementation of the Right to be forgotten CJEU ruling, set out in its guidelines that the de-linking should be effective on all Google extensions, including ‟Google.com”. However, Google still refuses such interpretation of the CJEU judgment, explaining that less than 5 percent of European searches are made from ‟Google.com” and that Google automatically directs internet searches to local extensions. Therefore, by simply removing the URL link from a European country extension, it was already avoiding nearly all accidental findings of the link in question, according to Google. Google further went on saying that the people finding the URL link were those who were actively looking for it anyway, and would have ended up finding it by using for example another search engine if they had continued their search.

                    4.3. CNIL’s action against Google: a forward-thinking approach

                    This standoffish approach taken by Google, in relation to the narrow geographical restriction of the delisting process of the URL links to the infringing Content, did not go down well in Europe.

                    On 10 March 2016, after several cease and desist letters and an aborted attempt to settle this amicably, the French CNIL sentenced Google to a fine of 100,000 Euros for breach of the provisions of the Directive 95/46/EC, the provisions of the ‟Loi informatiques et libertés” and the CJEU judgment on the right to be forgotten. Specifically, the CNIL pointed out that Google had to de-list the URLs on all country domain extensions, including ‟Google.com”.

                    CNIL made two major points in its decision:

                    • Google’s search engine services constitute a single data process and that its geographic extensions cannot be considered as separate data processing. Indeed, the company initially only exploited « .com » and gradually added extensions for each country to provide more adapted services to each country and national language.
                    • Therefore, in order for French residents’ right to have URLs concerning personal data delinked properly complied with, the delinking must be applied to all Google country extensions.

                    Google swiftly appealed the publicly published CNIL decision by filing a summary request before the French ‟Conseil d’Etat”. A decision from the ‟Conseil d’Etat” is expected to be handed over during the second quarter of 2017, so watch the space!

                    5. The best strategy to obtain the de-listing

                    How to remove links about dead people from Google?

                    Different countries across Europe have different policies concerning data protection.

                    If you are a resident or national of an EU member state, then it is worth taking a look at the personal data protection rules in force in other member states, in order to do some forum shopping.

                    If you are a resident or national of the USA however, your best strategy is not to try to beat Google in court, in the USA, as you will in most cases undoubtedly fail. The most sensible approach is to aim for the person or legal entity who leaked the personal data and information in the first place, if this is applicable to your case, in order to obtain damages from them.

                    5.1. The best strategy is to escalate your request through the French Data Protection Authority, the CNIL

                    As we have seen above, the French personal data protection regulations are among the most protective in the world, in particular for the personal data of dead people. That is why it is worth going through the French DPA, the CNIL, to have URL links removed, rather than through, say, the UK DPA, even for a UK resident.

                    In any case, before contemplating filing a court case, it is cheaper and wiser to first file a complaint with the CNIL. The complaint process with CNIL is free, and quite easy to undertake since it can be done entirely online. Furthermore, their website also has an English version, making the process much easier for nationals of another country.

                    The complaint can be filed online, on the CNIL website. You will need to fill out a form with your personal information, and then upload a copy of your Google request, a copy of Google’s refusal message, as well as any material that can back up your complaint. There is also space for any explanations you wish to send CNIL for their examination. The filed complaint will then be distributed to a CNIL examiner, who has two months to start examining Google’s refusal and your complaint.

                    CNIL examines your request according to French law. This is why your chances to succeed are way higher by going through the CNIL than through the ICO, especially if you want to de-list URL links about a deceased person.

                    Furthermore, the CNIL has already showed its effectiveness (and robustness) against Google, for example when it inflicted a 100,000 Euros penalty against Google, as described above.

                    5.2. Take incremental steps: removal request, escalation to CNIL and, as a last resort, lawsuit with French court

                    Firstly, you must have already received a refusal from Google to remove the links to start the escalation process.

                    And before you make a delisting request to Google, it may be wise (but by no means a statutory obligation) to attempt to contact the webmasters of the websites setting out the infringing Content, as these publishers may decide to simply remove it.

                    The reason you need to first file a delisting request with Google and wait to receive a refusal, is because the CNIL reaches out to Google to know its reason for refusing to delist the Content, and then assesses whether Google was in its right or not to refuse.

                    If the complaint process before the CNIL fails (or even instead of going before the CNIL), it is possible to take the matter to French courts. However, it is advisable to start with a complaint request filed with the CNIL, since the process is free  (unlike court action) and shorter than a lawsuit.

                    Article 79.2 of the GDPR sets out that proceedings against a data controller, such as Google, can be brought before the courts of the EU member state where the data controller or processor has an establishment. Google has an establishment in France: its subsidiary, Google France. Therefore, citizens of other EU member states can file a lawsuit in France, against Google, in order to enforce their right to be forgotten, or that of their close deceased. This however, will only be an option for UK citizens as long as the United Kingdom is a EU member state. After the completion of Brexit, UK citizens will no longer be able to enforce their right to be forgotten in France, unless appropriate bilateral agreements between the EU and the UK are put in place.

                    The advantage of starting legal proceedings in France, to enforce one’s right to be forgotten, is that French law will apply pursuant to Article 82.6 of the GDPR which sets out that the applicable law is that of the country whose courts the proceedings were brought before. This is good news for data subjects, since French law is much more favourable to data protection than UK regulations, in particular in relation to the right to be forgotten of dead people.



                    Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




                      Your name (required)

                      Your email (required)

                      Subject

                      Your message

                      captcha


                      Leave a response »