TONO's licensing terms for Oslo Philharmonic do not meet the requirements of the law
Supreme Court judgment 12 June 2023, HR-2023-1077-A (case no. 22-163505SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
TONO SA (Counsel Magnus Hauge Greaker) v. The Oslo Philharmonic (Counsel Are Stenvik)
When performing music that is protected by copyright, a fee must be paid to TONO, which manages composers' exclusive right to control protected musical works. The fee is normally calculated on the basis of a concert tariff. Like the previous instances, the Supreme Court found that TONO's claim that the Oslo Philharmonic should pay a higher fee than the concert tariff, based on special criteria, could not be accepted, as the condition in section 28 first sentence of the Act on collective management of copyright etc. that the licensing terms must be based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria was not fulfilled. The new fee had been calculated in a way that implied that the Oslo Philharmonic was treated differently from other concert organisers, and the different treatment was not objectively justified. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment was dismissed.
Area of law: Copyright
Key paragraphs: 33, 36, 47-48
Justices: Normann, Kallerud, Østensen Berglund, Sæther og konstituert dommer Elsheim