In copyright law, related rights (or neighbouring rights) are the rights of a creative work not connected with the work's actual author. It is used in opposition to the term "authors' rights". Neighbouring rights is a more literal translation of the original French droits voisins. Both authors' rights and related rights are copyrights in the sense of English or U.S. law.
Related rights vary much more widely in scope between different countries than authors' rights. The rights of performers, phonogram producers and broadcasting organisations are certainly covered, and are internationally protected by the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations signed in 1961.
Within the European Union, the rights of film producers (as opposed to directors) and database creators are also protected by related rights, and the term is sometimes extended to include the sui generis rights in semiconductor topologies and other industrial design rights. A practical definition is that related rights are copyright-type rights that are not covered by the Berne Convention.
International protection of related rights Apart from the Rome convention, a number of other treaties address the protection of related rights: Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms (Geneva Phonograms Convention, 1971) Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme–Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (Brussels Convention, 1974) Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC Treaty, 1989) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994) WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996) Apart from the TRIPS Agreement, these treaties cannot truly be described as global: the Rome Convention had 98 signatories as of 2025, compared with 162 for the Berne Convention.
Relation to authors' rights Related rights are independent of any authors' rights, as is made clear in the various treaties (Art. 1 Rome; Art. 7.1 Geneva; Art. 1.2 WPPT). Hence a CD recording of a song is concurrently protected by four copyright-type rights: Authors' rights of the composer of the music Authors' rights of the lyricist Performers' rights of the singer and musicians Producers' rights of the person or corporation that made the recording
Performers The protection of performers is perhaps the strongest and most unified of the related rights. A performer (musician, actor, etc.) has an intellectual input in their performance over and above that of the author of the work. As such, many countries grant moral rights to performers as well as the economic rights covered by the Rome Convention (Arts. 7–9), and the rights of paternity and integrity are required by the WPPT (Art. 5).
Performers' rights should not be confused with performing rights, which are the royalties due to the composer for a piece of music under copyright in return for the licence (permission) to perform the piece in public. In other words, performers must pay performing rights to composers. Under the Rome Convention (Art. 7), performers have the right to prevent: the broadcast or communication to the public of their performance, unless this is made from a legally published recording of the performance; the fixation (recording) of their performance; the reproduction of a recording of their performance. The WPPT extends these rights to include the right to license: the distribution of recordings of their performance, for sale or other transfer of ownership (Art. 8); the rental of recordings of their performances, unless there is a compulsory licence scheme in operation (Art. 9); the "making available to the public" of their performances (Art. 10), in effect their publication on the internet. Article 14 of the Rome Convention set a minimum term for the protection of performers' rights of twenty years from the end of the year in which the performance was made: the TRIPS Agreement (Art. 14.5) has extended this to fifty years. In the European Union, performers' rights last for fifty years from the end of the year of the performance, unless a recording of the performance was published in which case they last for fifty years from the end of the year of publication (Art. 3(100 }
In the United States, there is no federal statutory right in unfixed works such as performances, and no federal exclusive right to record a performance; some states, notably California, have performer rights laws, but as of 1988 these remain untested.
Performers rights in the United States of America
The US Copyright Statute does not explicitly recognize a copyright that is vested in the performer for their work. Therefore as a matter of statutory law, a performer, being either an actor, dancer, sportsperson or musician cannot claim a separate copyright.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Garcia v. Google however found that the absence of a statutory provision conferring an independent copyright on the performance did not imply that performances were not entitled to a protection. The Court observed that if the originality threshold, as was enunciated by the SCOTUS in Feist was met, then such original performances be in musical, dramatic or other performances were entitled to copyright, if they were themselves not unauthorized or otherwise infringing.Garcia v. Google, 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) at 1264. Court did not consider the fact that the performance of a work was itself a covered right under copyright to be repugnant with the conclusion that performers could enjoy copyright protection.See Smith J.'s Dissenting Opinion, Garcia v. Google, 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) at 1270 for the contrary view.
Despite the recognition of copyrights in performances, the US, for various stated reasons,Bonnie Teller, Note, Toward Better Protection of Performers in the United States: A Comparative Look at Performers’ Rights in the United States, Under the Rome Convention And in France, 28 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 775 (1990) is still not Party to the Rome Convention. Unlike many other Trade Agreements, the Rome Convention allows for reciprocityArticle 16(1)(a), Rome Convention and the failure of the US to ratify the Rome Convention has disentitled various American performers to copyright protection in other jurisdictions. The US does not explicitly recognize the related rights as a distinct category of copyright protection. As a consequence a host of remedies that would be available under the Copyright Statutes in different jurisdictions are sought through other common law remedies.
Fixation of Live Performances
Remedies for unauthorized fixation of performances are sought under the common law right of publicity.Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953) The SCOTUS in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co ruled that the Ohio State Legislation gave an individual the right to possess autonomy over the dissemination of their performance. Accordingly the Court held that the unauthorized recording and live telecasting of an individual's "human cannonball" performance was in violation of the right of publicity. This did not imply an unambiguous Performer's Right as the Court found that the unauthorized performance of the Plaintiff's entire work, in the absence of fair remuneration, was the only situation in which the Performer's "right to publicity" was violated.Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977) at 574-575 It therefore remains to be seen whether the fixation of a portion of the performance would violate such a right.
While the source of the right was founded in the law of unfair trade practices, Courts in the United States have found that the doctrine of Fair Use nevertheless applied to the fixation of live performances. Accordingly in Italian Book Company v. ABCItalian Book Co. v. ABC, 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). it was observed that small portions of live performances that were captured to communicate the mood and feel of an event were protected as it was fair use of the live performances.
Unauthorized reproduction of fixed performances
It must firstly be noted that in the United States, the work for hire doctrine disentitles performers who act under a contract of employment from possessing an entitlement to work in which their performance is fixed. Consequently, such performers may not assert a copyright over their performance that is distinct from the copyright in the work that their performance was fixed in. The decision of the Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit in Baltimore Orioles, Inc held that the performance of baseball players were not protected as being a distinct copyright and rather, that they were works for hire.
Nevertheless, certain State Governments have enacted statutes that explicitly recognize the right against sales and reproductions of fixed performances that were unauthorized. For example the New York Civil Code was relied upon in GieskingGiesking v. Urania Records,155 N.Y.S.2d 171 (1956) to preserve the rights of a musician against unauthorized reproduction.
Finally, as regard sound recordings, owing to Section 114 owners of copyrights in sound recordings do not have a right to prohibit the performance of their works (except in so far as demanding nominal remuneration for the same). Therefore the performances that are contained in the recording are not protected either. This position has however received staunch criticism.Bard & Kurlantzick, A Public Performance Right in Recordings: How to Alter the Copyright System Without Improving It, 43 GEO. WASH. L. REv. 152 (1974)
Unauthorized imitations of live performances
Another issue that merits mention in this context is the unauthorized featuring of popular persons, actors or the characters they have portrayed and voices of popular singers. While no remedy has been found within the statutory copyright regime, remedies have been granted under a common law right. For instance, in Milder v FordMilder v Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) the 9th Circuit observed that she had a "common law property right to her own voice".
Unauthorized recording or transmission of live musical performances
Of further note is the anti-bootlegging provision that was incorporated into the US Copyright Statute17 U.S.C. § 1101(c) (1994) by way of amendment in order to ensure consistency with the TRIPS Agreement. This provision, while not recognizing the existence of a copyright, nevertheless proscribes the unauthorized recording or transmission of performances of live musical works in sound recordings or videos, or transmitting such copies.
US regime provides for various kinds of protection of the rights of performers, it however is a complicated regime that is highly dependent on State laws and is far from being harmonized and consolidated like other regimes in Continental Europe.
Performers rights in India Performer's right has been defined in India as "where a performer appears or engages in any performance, he shall have a right known as the 'performer’s right' in relation to such performance".Section 38, The Copyright Act, 1957 The term performance has been used to refer to “any visual or acoustic presentation made live by one or more performers”.Section 2(q), The Copyright Act, 1957 In relation to the performance, a 'performer' has been sought to include "an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer, snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture or any other person who makes a performance".S.2(qq), The Copyright Act, 1957