A/HRC/23/34 81. In a number of countries, non-profit collective societies, with a majority of board members being artists, have been established to collect the income from artistic creations/performances. This system, under which collective societies do not own the artists’ rights, and in which the artist has the freedom to participate or not, should be promoted and protected. 82. A highly debated issue is whether the moral rights and copyright systems have evolved in such a manner that the balance between the rights of authors and artists on the one hand, and the need to promote creativity and access to culture on the other, is no longer achieved. Some observers stress that spaces within those systems that allow “certain free uses of work”, 52 are shrinking.53 Others consider that strengthening moral rights would help to promote such free uses of work. This debate is particularly vivid in the world of hiphop/rap culture, where sampling is an art in itself,54 but also concerns other areas of contemporary art.55 The challenge is to find flexible solutions, which neither infringe on artists’ moral right nor the fair interests of remuneration for publishers but, at the same time, respect the right of artists to “quote” or refer to other artists’ productions. 83. Another concern relates to the pressure exerted by entertainment and media companies to impose their ownership on material that is part of shared cultural heritage, though demanding the extension of the duration of the period of copyright, which they have obtained in some countries. The Bern Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyright for at least 50 years after the author's death, but authorizes longer terms. The limitation of material in the public domain and the narrowing of possibilities of free use may fly “directly in the face of contemporary art practices”.56 84. One additional concern is that on all these issues, artists are reluctant to enter into lengthy and costly judicial proceedings against corporations, which in turn can be a deterrent to artistic creativity. IV. Conclusion and recommendations 85. All persons enjoy the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity, which includes the right to freely experience and contribute to artistic expressions and creations, through individual or joint practice, to have access to and enjoy the arts, and to disseminate their expressions and creations.57 86. The effects of art censorship or unjustified restrictions of the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity are devastating. They generate important cultural, social and economic losses, deprive artists of their means of expression and livelihood, create an unsafe environment for all those engaged in the arts and their audiences, sterilize debates on human, social and political issues, hamper the functioning of democracy and most often also impede debates on the legitimacy of censorship itself. 87. In many cases, censorship is counterproductive in that it gives wider publicity to controversial artworks. However, the fear censorship generates in artists and art institutions often leads to self-censorship, which stifles art expression and 52 53 54 55 56 57 18 Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, article 10. See Céline Romainville. Siva Vaidhyanathan, American music challenges the copyright tradition, in Censoring culture, op. cit., p. 45. See Céline Romainville, p. 19. Robert Atkins, Svetlana Mintcheva, Censoring culture, op. cit., p. 7. See submission from the Observatoire de la diversité et des droits culturels.