Research

EnDOW Report 2: Requirements for Diligent Search in 20 European Countries

Type: Report
Author
Aura Bertoni, Flavia Guerrieri, Maria Lillà Montagnani
Description
EnDOW Report 2 builds on EnDOW Report 1, extending the survey of legislative requirements for diligent search to jurisdictions including France, Germany, Ireland and Spain. The report finds that the number of diligent search sources listed in national legislation varies significantly from country to country, limiting the harmonisation intended by the EU Orphan Works Directive.
Date
2017 June 1
Abstract
The abstract provided by the author(s) of this work is as follows: The Orphan Works Directive 2012 requires that a Diligent Search of rightholders is carried out before a work be declared an orphan, and thus falling within the relevant exception. This Report presents the analysis of the conditions under which a Diligent Search can be carried out under the laws of seventeen countries that are the object of the research (UK, Italy and the Netherlands being already analysed in Report 1). For each jurisdiction, a questionnaire has been answered by a local expert to determine the implementation of the Orphan Work Directive and what are the requirements for the Diligent Search. In particular: a) Who can carry out a Diligent Search and on what conditions; b) What are the authoritative sources and databases to be consulted and to what extent they are accessible on line; c) What use can be made of an orphan work.
All the examined countries have implemented the Orphan Works Directive adopting a limited number of variations as to subjective and objective scopes and permitted uses. In regard to the appropriate sources to carry out the Diligent Search and the ways to document it, however, several discrepancies emerge. The Directive leaves to the Member Countries the choice about what sources should be consulted in order to meet the requirement of a Diligent Search, therefore all countries under scrutiny have issued or are in the process of issuing lists of sources to be consulted. The evidence from the seventeen jurisdictions examined, combined with the three jurisdiction examined in Report 1, reveals that the majority of countries adopt illustrative lists, i.e.: “open-ended” tools that may require that sources beyond those listed are consulted. A minority of countries, on the other hand, merely reflects the general provision of the Directive without giving any additional information about the sources to be consulted. As a result the number of sources listed varies considerably among countries.
Publisher
EnDOW Project
Institution
CIPPM Bournemouth University, CREATe University of Glasgow, IViR University of Amsterdam, ASK Boconni University of Milan
Pages (from-to)
1-226
Jurisdiction
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, European Union
Language
ENG
Size
2.75 MB, 226 pp.
Copyright Information
In Copyright
Rights and Reuse
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Cortex Citation:
Aura Bertoni, Flavia Guerrieri, and Maria Lillà Montagnani, “EnDOW Report 2: Requirements for Diligent Search in 20 European Countries,” Copyright Cortex, accessed October 28, 2020, https://copyrightcortex.org/research/endow-report-2-requirements-for-diligent-search-in-20-european-countries.