Austria: The (new) transfer of rights by purpose in copyright contract law

The modification to the Austrian Copyright Act introduces a entire range of new provisions on copyright deal regulation, strengthening the posture of authors and performers¹. In our initially Lawful Perception (“Austria: The (new) Copyright Contract Law“) we provided some track record details and an overview. In our 2nd and 3rd Legal Insights, we introduced the new remuneration provisions (“Austria: The (new) copyright remuneration guidelines for authors and performers“) and the transparency obligation (“Austria: The (new) copyright transparency obligation“), which are primarily based on the DSM Directive.

Now we want to have a glance at the provisions adopted from the German Copyright Act, in this edition the transfer of rights by the reason of the agreement (Sec 31 para 5 German Copyright Act Sec 24c para 1 Austrian Copyright Act).

Introduction

Decoding copyright contracts dependent on their objective is not new in Austria. After all, this teleological interpretation is an necessary element of every single agreement investigation and the idea of transfer by function produced in Germany has generally been an integral aspect of Austrian jurisprudence. Appropriately, the extent of legal rights granted does not, in scenario of question, go beyond what is essential for the realistic intent of the supposed use of the function.

In addition, the human being commissioning a do the job is in any case implicitly granted the legal rights to use the operate for the goal for which the function was commissioned. If the commission to use the operate would only make perception if the commissioner on your own is entitled to use the do the job, the legal rights granted are unique.

Although the provision merely codifies existing scenario regulation in this respect, the new regulation goes beyond this preceding situation law.

Written content of the provision

For all contracts on the granting of legal rights of use, the provision gives for a type of obligation on the element of the acquirer of the rights to expressly and independently designate the types of exploitation included by the licence. If such varieties of exploitation are not expressly and separately selected, the objective of the agreement as comprehended by both functions will determine which forms of exploitation it handles. This is not a rule of doubt. Even if it is crystal clear that the parties preferred to deal with all types of exploitation, the scope of the licence is limited according to the intent of the agreement, if the varieties of exploitation are not expressly and individually specified.

Nevertheless, this does not relate to a specification of exploitation legal rights like the suitable of replica, distribution appropriate, interaction to the public, etc.), but the varieties of exploitation. A sort of exploitation describes the scope and “subject of use” of exploitation rights.

There is no formal prerequisite for the specification the types of exploitation can as a result also be separately and expressly specified orally.

In addition, the regulation stipulates that (in scenario of doubt) it must be identified on the basis of the function of the agreement whether or not exclusive or non-distinctive legal rights have been granted, how much the legal rights granted increase and what constraints they are topic to. This is what Austrian courts have formerly finished in any case.

According to the legislator, the adoption of the provision is justified by the guiding theory of the author’s participation in the financial exploitation of his or her get the job done to the biggest attainable extent. The provision is meant to shield the writer as the usually weaker party to the contract and to reduce an abnormal granting of exploitation rights through in depth grants of rights to the exploiter (copyright buyout). This is to guarantee that the acquirer is not granted more rights than important with out a evidently recognisable intention on the portion of the parties.

The intent of the contract

If the kinds of exploitation are not expressly selected, the reason of the agreement will identify the varieties of exploitation to which the grant of rights extends. Additionally, in circumstance of question, it should really be decided based on the function of the contract irrespective of whether unique or non-exceptional rights have been granted, how far the legal rights granted lengthen and what restrictions they are matter to.

It is thus normally sensible to point out the function of the contract explicitly and clearly in the deal.

When analyzing the intent of the contract, the industry practice could possibly also be regarded as, but also preliminary negotiations, accompanying situations, very similar contractual interactions, common activity, business enterprise construction and the normal class of business enterprise of the functions included, insofar as they enable conclusions to be drawn about the objective of the agreement.

In purchase to realize a complete granting or transfer of legal rights – which is typically desired or even required in follow, particularly in relation to will work built for use and commissioned operates – supplying the acquirer of the legal rights a position very similar to that of an proprietor, it is a good idea to explain that this is specifically the intent of the agreement.

Who is subject matter to this provision?

The provision applies not only to contracts involving authors and very first exploiters but to all contracts on the granting of legal rights of use. It is only applicable to contracts concluded immediately after the modification arrived into force, i.e. on 1 January 2022.

On top of that, the following are excluded from the provision:

• Is effective made in the scope of an employment marriage

The law leaves open what constitutes an work romantic relationship. In the absence of European regulation specifications, this will be established by Austrian labour law. Even so, the reason – although it is an exception – argues against an overly restrictive interpretation, so that folks equivalent to staff members and freelancers may perhaps also be coated.

• Subordinated contributions

These are operates that characterize a not considerable contribution in relation to the total do the job. Nevertheless, it relies upon on the personal situation, having into account copyright and financial aspects.

• Laptop or computer applications²
• Cinematographic works

For cinematographic performs a distinct rule of doubt applies, i.e. authors who undertake to take part in the production of a movie thereby grant the producer the exceptional right to use the cinematographic operate as very well as translations and other cinematographic adaptations or transformations of the do the job for all sorts of exploitation.

In situation of such exceptions, blanket grants of legal rights with no listing the kinds of exploitation are permissible and implied grants of legal rights over and above the objective of the deal are achievable.

The goal transfer theory is not mandatory and can consequently be waived. Also in scenario of these types of a waiver a detailed grant of rights is doable without having listing the varieties of exploitation.

Sensible advice

Commonly, it is highly recommended to point out the goal of the deal, for example in a preamble of the contract. Also, the varieties of exploitation ought to be explicitly mentioned exactly where feasible (and in distinct in case they go past the intent of the agreement). If detailed legal rights to a function are granted in get to generate an “owner-like” situation for the acquirer, this must be mentioned as the reason of the contract. It is also advisable to explicitly list all exploitation rights that ought to be lined by a grant of rights.