German music law is a complex field that encompasses various legal areas, including copyright law, contract law, and competition law. The primary legal framework for music rights in Germany is the German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG), which protects the rights of composers, lyricists, performers, and other creators in the music industry. Below is a comprehensive explanation of German music law, the relevant collecting societies, and key legal cases.

1. Copyright Protection in Music

Under the German Copyright Act, musical works are protected as intellectual property. This protection includes:

• Composition Rights: The melody, harmony, and structure of a musical work are protected.
• Lyric Rights: The text of a song is protected as a literary work.
• Related Rights (Leistungsschutzrechte): Performers, producers, and broadcasters have rights related to their contributions (e.g., a recording artist’s performance or a record label’s production).

Copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator (for compositions and lyrics) or 70 years after publication (for sound recordings).

2. Exploitation Rights

Copyright holders have exclusive rights to control how their works are used. These include:

• Reproduction Rights: Copying or recording music.
• Distribution Rights: Selling or distributing physical or digital copies.
• Performance Rights: Public performances, including live concerts, radio, and streaming.
• Synchronization Rights: Using music in films, advertisements, or video games.
• Adaptation Rights: Creating derivative works, such as remixes or translations.

3. Collecting Societies (Verwertungsgesellschaften)

In Germany, collecting societies manage the rights of creators and ensure they receive royalties for the use of their works. The main collecting societies in the music industry are:

a) GEMA (Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte)

• Represents composers, lyricists, and publishers.
• Manages performance rights, mechanical rights, and synchronization rights.
• Example: GEMA collects royalties when a song is played on the radio, performed live, or streamed online.

b) GVL (Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten)

• Represents performers and producers.
• Manages rights related to sound recordings and broadcasts.
• Example: GVL collects royalties for the use of recorded music on streaming platforms or in public spaces.

c) SUISA (Swiss Society for the Rights of Authors of Musical Works)

• Although based in Switzerland, SUISA collaborates with GEMA for cross-border rights management.

4. Key Legal Concepts

a) Equitable Remuneration (Angemessene Vergütung)

• Copyright holders are entitled to fair compensation for the use of their works.
• Example: Streaming platforms must pay royalties to artists and rights holders.

b) Extended Collective Licensing (Erweiterte Kollektivlizenz)

• Allows collecting societies to license works on behalf of all rights holders, even non-members.
• Example: GEMA can license music for public performances without individual agreements.

c) Private Copying Levy (Privatkopieabgabe)

• A levy on blank media and recording devices to compensate rights holders for private copying.
• Example: A fee is added to the price of blank CDs or USB sticks.

5. Landmark Legal Cases

a) Case: “Metall auf Metall” (BGH, I ZR 112/06)

• Issue: Sampling without permission.
• Ruling: The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that sampling a sound recording requires the consent of the rights holder.
• Significance: Established that sound recordings are protected under related rights, and unauthorized sampling constitutes copyright infringement.

b) Case: “Reha Training” (CJEU, C-117/15)

• Issue: Whether a rehabilitation center playing music publicly requires a license.
• Ruling: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that any communication of music to a public audience requires a license.
• Significance: Clarified the scope of public performance rights under EU copyright law.

c) Case: “YouTube vs. GEMA” (LG München I, 33 O 27581/12)

• Issue: Royalty rates for streaming music on YouTube.
• Ruling: The court ruled in favor of GEMA, stating that YouTube must pay higher royalties for streaming music in Germany.
• Significance: Highlighted the tension between digital platforms and collecting societies over royalty rates.

d) Case: “Sampling Case” (BGH, I ZR 115/16)

• Issue: Use of a two-second music sample.
• Ruling: The BGH ruled that even minimal sampling requires permission if the sample is recognizable.
• Significance: Reinforced the strict protection of sound recordings under German law.

6. Challenges and Developments

• Digitalization: The rise of streaming platforms has led to disputes over royalty rates and licensing models.
• EU Copyright Directive: The implementation of the EU Copyright Directive (2019/790) has introduced new rules for online content sharing and fair remuneration.
• Transparency: Collecting societies face criticism for lack of transparency in royalty distribution.

7. Conclusion

German music law provides robust protection for creators and rights holders, with collecting societies like GEMA and GVL playing a central role in managing rights and collecting royalties. However, the evolving digital landscape and cross-border issues continue to pose challenges for the music industry. Legal cases such as “Metall auf Metall” and “YouTube vs. GEMA” have shaped the interpretation and enforcement of music rights in Germany.

1. Germany

1. Implementation of the EU Copyright Directive (DSM Directive):
   • Key Changes:
     • Article 17 of the DSM Directive: Platforms like YouTube are directly liable for copyrighted content uploaded by users unless they meet specific requirements, such as obtaining licenses or implementing effective content filtering technologies.
     • Introduction of exceptions for user-generated content (UGC), such as parodies, critiques, and quotes, provided the use is non-commercial.
   • Practical Impact:
     • Platforms are investing in upload filters and licensing models.
     • Artists benefit from stronger negotiating positions with platforms.
2. Strengthening Rights for Artists and Composers:
   • Amendments to the German Copyright Act (UrhG) require licensees to provide transparent accounting and ensure fair remuneration for creators.
3. Copyright for AI-Generated Music:
   • There is an ongoing debate in Germany about whether and how AI-generated music can be protected. Protection depends on whether human contribution exists or whether AI tools are considered merely auxiliary.

2. European Union

1. Harmonization of Music Rights:
   • The EU is working on connecting collecting societies like GEMA in Germany to simplify licensing across Europe.
   • Introduction of a European Licensing Hub for cross-border digital music rights.
2. Regulation of AI in Music Production:
   • The proposed EU Artificial Intelligence Act could set standards for AI systems in music production, including transparency and liability requirements.
3. Fair Contracts for Live Music and Streaming:
   • New EU rules aim to create fairer compensation for musicians in live performances and streaming. This includes mandatory minimum payouts for streaming services.

3. International

1. WIPO Negotiations (World Intellectual Property Organization):
   • The WIPO is discussing global standards for managing AI-generated music, focusing on copyright and licensing.
   • Adjustments to international treaties like the Berne Convention are being considered to address new technologies and digital use.
2. Compensation for Global Music Streams:
   • Efforts are underway to establish international standards for compensating artists and creators for global music streams, particularly through reforms to collective rights management systems.
3. NFTs and Music Rights:
   • Globally, legal frameworks are being developed for music-related NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), addressing how they intersect with copyright law and whether they represent licenses or ownership transfers.

Future Developments in Music Law

1. Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence:
   • With the growing use of AI in music production, new regulations may emerge to establish clear protection mechanisms for AI-generated works.
   • Automated Licensing Systems: Blockchain technologies may automate rights management and licensing globally.
2. Streaming and Fair Compensation:
   • Discussions about fair revenue distribution from streaming will intensify. Mandatory revenue-sharing models could be introduced to directly benefit artists.
3. International Harmonization:
   • Countries may increasingly work toward unified standards for digital music rights, offering global creators better protection and minimizing legal uncertainties.
4. Metaverse and New Music Applications:
   • As the metaverse grows, questions will arise about how music is protected and licensed in virtual worlds.
   • Virtual Concerts and Interactivity: Music law must adapt to hybrid models of physical and digital performances.
5. Sustainability in the Music Industry:
   • Future copyright provisions may also address the carbon footprint of music production and distribution.

Challenges and Roles for Music Law Experts:

1. Legal Advice:
   • Advising artists and platforms on new liability and licensing requirements.
2. AI and Technology:
   • Developing new legal frameworks for AI-generated music and automated rights management.
3. Contract Drafting:
   • Negotiating contracts for streaming, NFTs, and virtual concerts.
4. International Collaboration:
   • Supporting cross-border licensing and adapting to international standards.
5. Rights Enforcement:
   • Assisting creators in enforcing their claims, particularly in the digital space.

Music law will continue evolving to address technological and societal changes. The increasing digitalization, the rise of AI, and the globalization of the music industry are among the most significant challenges and opportunities shaping its future.

Generally speaking, copyrights are not so easy to transfer or to sell: A composer cannot just decide to transfer the copyright of a musical work as such. This is also not possible by means of a contract. However, it is possible to grant others a right to use the work. To do this, a licence agreement is strictly necessary. This must contain the most important information about the scope of use and the remuneration.

German copyright law lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. This means that as long as the composer is alive, the copyright is his and his alone. After his death, it passes to his heirs for a total of 70 years. Only then is it considered “in the public domain”. Then anyone may perform the piece of music in public without permission or remuneration.

Do you have any other question? Make sure to fill out our contact form and we will be glad to help you!