Book Description
The twentieth century has witnessed the birth and the upbringing of performers' rights. Although performances in general are interpretations of works of authorship, the international community has not followed national doctrines that provide performers with copyright protection. Performers, producers of phonograms, and broadcasting organizations have been granted related or neighboring rights instead. The existing international treaties in this field, such as the Rome Convention, TRIPS, and the WPPT have cemented this approach and many legal systems have implemented it.The impressive scope of protection on the international level does not determine its national level. Its existence does not itself justify why a state chooses to join international treaties. I argue that only national law, specifically national constitutions, can furnish compelling legal - not political - reasons whether and to what extent to establish protection for performers. In particular, I analyze whether the national law requires protection of performers by giving them exclusive rights in their performances. Comparing the legals systems of the U.S. and Germany I argue that the United States Constitution does not require a state to protect performers against exploitation of their performances by others. German constitutional law offers a strikingly different approach. The state has a duty to protect its citizen's fundamental rights against interference by non-state actors. The property clause in the Basic Law requires protection for performers. Finally, I propose a method to balance the competing interests known as the proportionality principle.
