CELEX: 62008CC0005
Language: en
Date: 2009-02-12 00:00:00
Title: Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 12 February 2009. # Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Højesteret - Denmark. # Copyright - Information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Articles 2 and 5 - Literary and artistic works - Concept of ‘reproduction’ - Reproduction ‘in part’ - Reproduction of short extracts of literary works - Newspaper articles - Temporary and transient reproductions - Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out. # Case C-5/08.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
      TRSTENJAK
      delivered on 12 February 2009 (1)
      
      Case C‑5/08
      Infopaq International A/S
      v
      Danske Dagblades Forening
      (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark))
      (Directive 2001/29 – Articles 2 and 5 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Reproduction right – Exceptions and limitations – Temporary acts of reproduction – Monitoring and analysis of the media – Extracts from newspaper articles composed of 11 words)
      I –  Introduction
      1.        This case raises the sensitive issue of the balance between the protection of copyright and technological development in the
         information society. The protection of copyright should not on the one hand prevent the normal functioning and the development
         of new technologies, but on the other hand it is necessary to ensure an adequate protection of copyright in the information
         society. Technological development allows in fact faster and easier reproduction of works, for which reason protection of
         copyright must adapt to this technological development. 
      
      2.        The questions referred to the Court in this case concern first of all whether the storing and printing of extracts from newspaper
         articles, where the extract is composed of the search word and the five preceding and five subsequent words, in the same order
         as in the newspaper article, can be regarded as reproduction within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the
         European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights
         in the information society (2) (‘Directive 2001/29’). The questions also concern whether the production of those extracts, which covers the scanning of
         newspaper articles leading to the creation of an image file and the conversion of this image file into a text file, and the
         storing of a extract consisting of 11 words, are permitted on the basis that they are reproduction activities which fulfil
         the conditions of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. By its questions, the national court wishes to know, lastly, whether
         the acts of reproduction in this case fulfil the conditions of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      3.        Those questions have been raised in the context of proceedings between Infopaq International A/S (‘Infopaq’) and the professional
         association of Danish daily newspaper publishers, in which Infopaq requested the national court to find that for the production
         of extracts from newspaper articles which are composed of search words and the five preceding and five subsequent words it
         does not require authorisation from the holders of copyright over the newspaper articles.
      
      II –  Legal framework
      4.        Recitals 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 21, 22, 31 and 33 in the preamble to Directive 2001/20 provide:
      
      ‘(4)      A harmonised legal framework on copyright and related rights, through increased legal certainty and while providing for a
         high level of protection of intellectual property, will foster substantial investment in creativity and innovation ... .
      
      (5)      Technological development has multiplied and diversified the vectors for creation, production and exploitation. While no new
         concepts for the protection of intellectual property are needed, the current law on copyright and related rights should be
         adapted and supplemented to respond adequately to economic realities such as new forms of exploitation.
      
      ...
      (9)      Any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must take as a basis a high level of protection, since such rights are crucial
         to intellectual creation. Their protection helps to ensure the maintenance and development of creativity in the interests
         of authors, performers, producers, consumers, culture, industry and the public at large. Intellectual property has therefore
         been recognised as an integral part of property.
      
      (10)      If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for
         the use of their work, as must producers in order to be able to finance this work. ... Adequate legal protection of intellectual
         property rights is necessary in order to guarantee the availability of such a reward and provide the opportunity for satisfactory
         returns on this investment.
      
      (11)      A rigorous, effective system for the protection of copyright and related rights is one of the main ways of ensuring that European
         cultural creativity and production receive the necessary resources and of safeguarding the independence and dignity of artistic
         creators and performers.
      
      ...
      (21)      This Directive should define the scope of the acts covered by the reproduction right with regard to the different beneficiaries.
         This should be done in conformity with the acquis communautaire. A broad definition of these acts is needed to ensure legal
         certainty within the internal market.
      
      (22)      The objective of proper support for the dissemination of culture must not be achieved by sacrificing strict protection of
         rights or by tolerating illegal forms of distribution of counterfeited or pirated works.
      
      ...
      (31)      A fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different
         categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matter must be safeguarded. The existing exceptions and limitations
         to the rights as set out by the Member States have to be reassessed in the light of the new electronic environment. Existing
         differences in the exceptions and limitations to certain restricted acts have direct negative effects on the functioning of
         the internal market of copyright and related rights. Such differences could well become more pronounced in view of the further
         development of transborder exploitation of works and cross-border activities. In order to ensure the proper functioning of
         the internal market, such exceptions and limitations should be defined more harmoniously. The degree of their harmonisation
         should be based on their impact on the smooth functioning of the internal market.
      
      ...
      (33)      The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which
         are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process and carried out
         for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a
         lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made. The acts of reproduction concerned should have no separate economic
         value on their own. To the extent that they meet these conditions, this exception should include acts which enable browsing
         as well as acts of caching to take place, including those which enable transmission systems to function efficiently, provided
         that the intermediary does not modify the information and does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised
         and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information. A use should be considered lawful where it is authorised
         by the rightholder or not restricted by law.’
      
      5.        Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, entitled ‘Reproduction right’, provides:
      
      ‘Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction
         by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:
      
      (a)      for authors, of their works;
      ...’
      6.        Article 5 of Directive 2001/29, entitled ‘Exceptions and limitations’, provides:
      
      ‘1.      Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential
         part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable: (3)
      
      (a)      a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or
      (b)      a lawful use
      of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from
         the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.
      
      ...
      3.      Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases:
      …
      (c)      reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political
         or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly
         reserved, and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in
         connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source,
         including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible;
      
      (d)      quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has
         already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to be impossible, the source, including the
         author’s name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific
         purpose;
      
      ...
      (o)      use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided
         that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without
         prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.
      
      …
      5.      The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which
         do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate
         interests of the rightholder.’
      
      
      7.        Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 was transposed into Danish law by Article 2 of the Ophavsretslov (Law on copyright) (4) which provides:
      
      ‘1.      Subject to the limitations laid down in this law, copyright shall entail the exclusive right to dispose of the work by reproducing
         it and by making it accessible to the public, whether in the original or modified form, in translation, in adaptation into
         another literary or artistic form or into other technology.
      
      2.      Any direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction, in whole or in part, by any means and in any form shall be considered
         as reproduction. The recording of the work on devices which can reproduce it, shall also be considered as a reproduction.
      
      ...’
      8.        Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 was transposed into Danish law by Article 11bis(1) of the Ophavsretslov, which provides:
      
      ‘It shall be permitted to make temporary copies which
      (i)      are transient or incidental;
      (ii)      are an integral and essential part of a technological process;
      (iii) have as their sole purpose to enable a transmission of a work in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a
         lawful use of a work; and
      
      (iv)      have no independent economic significance.’
      III –  Facts, main proceedings and questions referred for a preliminary ruling
      9.        Infopaq operates a media monitoring and analysis business. The media monitoring consists of drawing up summaries (5) of selected articles from Danish daily newspapers and other periodicals. The articles are selected on the basis of subject
         criteria agreed with Infopaq’s customers; the summaries are then sent to customers by email. On request, Infopaq also sends
         hardcopy clippings of newspaper articles to its customers.
      
      10.      The articles are selected on the basis of a ‘data capture process’ which has five stages.
      
      11.      In the first stage, basic information in respect of each publication is registered manually by Infopaq employees in an electronic
         database. 
      
      12.      In the second stage, they scan the publications. Before the scanning, the spine of the publication is cut off so that all
         the pages are loose sheets; the selected extract is then scanned. On the basis of the scanning, an image file (6) is created for each page of the publication. The image file is then transferred to an Optical Character Recognition server. (7)
      
      13.      In the third stage, the Optical Character Recognition server converts the image file into a text file. To be more precise,
         the image of each letter is converted into an ‘ASCII code’, (8) which allows the computer to recognise each individual letter. Thus, for example, the image of the letters TDC is converted
         into something the computer can recognise as the letters TDC. The image of a word is therefore converted into an actual word
         which is saved as a text file and which can be understood by any text processing programme. The process using the Optical
         Character Recognition server is completed by deletion of the image file. 
      
      14.      In the fourth stage, the text file is processed to find predefined search words. Each time the search word appears in the
         text, it is saved in a file giving the title of the publication, the section and the page in which the word in question is
         found. In addition, the file indicates a value, expressed as a percentage between 0 and 100, which indicates where the search
         word is to be found in the text. To further simplify finding the word when the article is later read, the five words preceding
         and following the word are indicated. This stage concludes by deletion of the text file. 
      
      15.      During the fifth and sixth stages of the process, a document is printed out for each page of the newspaper in which the search
         word appears; this document contains the search word and the five words which precede and follow it. The national court gives
         an example of such a document:
      
      ‘4 November 2005 – Dagbladet Arbejderen, page 3:
      TDC: 73% “forthcoming sale of the telecommunications group TDC, which is expected to be bought”.’
      16.      The Danske Dagblades Forening (‘DDF’) is the professional association of Danish daily newspapers whose function is to assist
         its members with any questions concerning copyright. In 2005, DDF became aware that Infopaq was producing extracts from press
         articles, without authorisation from the copyright holders – it informed Infopaq of this.
      
      17.      Infopaq disputed the claim that it required authorisation from the copyright holders to carry out its business and consequently
         brought an action against DDF before the Østre Landsret to obtain a declaration that it had the right to apply the ‘data capture
         process’ without the consent of DDF or its members. The Østre Landsret dismissed the action as unfounded, for which reason
         Infopaq lodged an appeal before the referring court (Højesteret). 
      
      18.      In its order, the national court states that it is not disputed in this case that consent from the copyright holders is not
         necessary in so far as monitoring of the written press and the drawing up of summaries of newspaper articles is involved,
         if a person physically reads each publication, if the articles are selected manually on the basis of predefined search words
         and if, on that basis, a document is produced manually, indicating the search word in the article in question and the position
         of that article in the publication. Nor is it disputed that, in itself, the drawing up of summaries does not require the consent
         of copyright holders. 
      
      19.      It is thus not disputed in this case that the ‘data capture process’ involves two acts of reproduction, namely: (1) the scanning
         of newspaper articles on the basis of which an image file is created and (2) the conversion of the image file into a text
         file. The national court states moreover that this process also involves the continual reproduction of the articles thus processed
         as (3) the search word is stored with the five words which precede and follow it and (4) those 11 words are then printed out.
         The national court makes clear that the parties in the main proceedings disagree as to whether the acts referred to in (3)
         and (4) constitute reproduction within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29.
      
      20.      Under those circumstances, the national court, by order of 21 December 2007, stayed the proceedings and referred the following
         questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: (9)
      
      ‘(1)      Can the storing and subsequent printing out of a text extract from an article in a daily newspaper, consisting of a search
         word and the five preceding and five subsequent words, be regarded as acts of reproduction (10) which are protected by Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation
         of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10)? (11)
      
      (2)      Is the context in which temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant to whether they can be regarded as “transient”
         (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29)?
      
      (3)      Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as “transient” where the reproduction is processed, for example, by the creation
         of a text file on the basis of an image file or by a search for text strings on the basis of a text file?
      
      (4)      Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as “transient” where part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text
         extracts of 11 words, is stored?
      
      (5)      Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as “transient” where part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text
         extracts of 11 words, is printed out?
      
      (6)      Is the stage of the technological process at which temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant to whether they constitute
         an “integral and essential part of a technological process” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29)? 
      
      (7)      Can temporary acts of reproduction be an “integral and essential part of a technological process” if they consist of manual
         scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter are transformed from a printed medium into a digital medium?
      
      (8)      Can temporary acts of reproduction constitute an “integral and essential part of a technological process” where they consist
         of printing out part of the reproduction, comprising one or more text extracts of 11 words?
      
      (9)      Does “lawful use” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29) include any form of use which does not require the rightholder’s
         consent?
      
      (10)      Does “lawful use” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29) include the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper
         articles, subsequent processing of the reproduction, and the storing and possible printing out of part of the reproduction,
         consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, for use in the business’s summary writing, even where the rightholder
         has not given consent to those acts?
      
      (11)      What criteria should be used to assess whether temporary acts of reproduction have “independent economic significance” (see
         Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/19) if the other conditions laid down in the provision are satisfied?
      
      (12)      Can the user’s efficiency gains from temporary acts of reproduction be taken into account in assessing whether the acts have
         “independent economic significance” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29)? 
      
      (13)      Can the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduction, and the
         storing and possible printing out of part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, without
         the rightholder’s consent, be regarded as constituting “certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation”
         of the newspaper articles and “not unreasonably [prejudicing] the legitimate interests of the rightholder” (see Article 5(5)
         of Directive 2001/29)?’
      
      IV –  Procedure before the Court
      21.      The order for reference was received at the Court on 4 January 2008. In the context of the written procedure, Infopaq, DDF
         and the Commission submitted observations. During the hearing on 20 November 2008, Infopaq, DDF and the Commission made oral
         statements and replied to the Court’s questions.
      
      V –  Arguments of the parties
      A –    First question referred
      22.      Infopaq considers that the storing and subsequent printing of an extract from the text of a newspaper article which contains the
         search word and the five words which precede and follow it do not constitute partial acts of reproduction within the meaning
         of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29. Infopaq points out that Directive 2001/29 does not lay down a minimum threshold for the
         number of words below which there is no longer reproduction in part, even though such a de minimis threshold must in any case exist. Infopaq considers that the 11 words which are stored and printed do not go beyond the particular
         minimum number which is the prerequisite for the existence of a reproduction in part. 
      
      23.      The Commission and DDF on the contrary take the view that the storing and subsequent printing of an extract from the text of a newspaper article
         which contains the search word and the five words which precede and which follow it are acts of reproduction which are protected
         by Article 2 of Directive 2001/29.
      
      24.      The Commission considers that the storing and printing of an extract from an article are forms of reproduction. It states
         that it is apparent from Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 that the exclusive reproduction right of authors covers also reproduction
         in part and that an extract of an article consisting of 11 words constitutes reproduction in part within the meaning of that
         article.
      
      25.      DDF states, like the Commission, that the storing and printing of an extract from an article consisting of 11 words constitutes
         reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29. DDF points out that when the search words appear
         a number of times in an article, large parts of that article will be reproduced; to illustrate this point it submits an article
         in which two search words with the five words which precede and follow them are underlined. It disagrees with the position
         of the Austrian Government, (12) that the part of the work of the author which is reproduced must in itself fulfil the conditions in that regard in order
         that it can be defined as a work. It considers that the fact that the meaning and the conditions for the existence of a work
         are not harmonised in Directive 2001/29 does not prohibit the Court from interpreting the meaning of reproduction in part
         of a work. The assessment of the question of whether in this case there is reproduction in part of a work must take place
         independently of the conditions laid down by national law for the existence of a work. 
      
      26.      The Austrian Government takes the view that Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 certainly gives authors the exclusive right of reproduction in part of
         the work, but it does not define the meaning of work nor give guidelines as to the specific circumstances under which such
         a work is protected. In so far as the conditions governing the protection of works are not harmonised by Community law, it
         is necessary according to the Austrian Government to assess them on the basis of national law. Taking account of that fact,
         the Austrian Government points out that the part of the work which is reproduced must fulfil in itself the conditions required
         for it to be defined as a work.
      
      B –    Second to twelfth questions referred
      27.      Infopaq and the Austrian Government consider that the process of production of extracts from articles must be considered as a temporary act of reproduction within
         the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29; this process is permissible as it fulfils all of the conditions laid down
         by that article: first, because a transient act is involved, secondly, because that act is an integral and essential part
         of the technological process, thirdly, because its sole purpose is to allow the lawful use of the work or of the subject-matter
         of related rights and, fourthly, because that act has no independent economic significance.
      
      28.      Infopaq states with regard to the first condition, (‘transient’ act) that Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 is not limited only to temporary acts of reproduction
         in the form of browsing and the making of ‘cache’ copies. The condition that the act must be ‘transient’ only concerns the
         duration of the temporary act of reproduction and acts of reproduction the duration of which is less than or equal to 30 seconds
         must be considered as ‘transient’. 
      
      29.      Concerning the second condition (‘integral and essential part of a technological process’), Infopaq considers that it can clearly be seen from
         the meaning of integral part that the stage of the technological process at which the temporary act of reproduction takes
         place is irrelevant.
      
      30.      Concerning the third condition (‘lawful use’), Infopaq states that it does not follow from Article 5(1), nor from recital 33 in the preamble to
         Directive 2001/29, that ‘lawful use’ means only use of the Internet in the form of browsing and the making of ‘cache’ copies.
         ‘Lawful use’ means any use of a work in respect of which the consent of the copyright holder is not necessary. Moreover it
         is not important as regards ‘lawful use’ to know who uses the work; this can be the end-user or any other person. The decisive
         factor for the reply to the question of whether there is ‘lawful use’ is whether in the context of the proceedings in question
         an original of the publication is being used which was obtained lawfully. 
      
      31.      Concerning the fourth condition (‘independent economic significance’), Infopaq states that the question of independent economic significance must
         be considered from the point of view of the author. Moreover, as regards that condition, it is sufficient to find whether
         the temporary act of reproduction has an independent economic significance and not whether the whole technological process
         has such a significance. Infopaq points out that the final purpose of the technological process which it uses is the production
         of summaries which is in itself lawful and does not infringe the copyright of the publications; the temporary acts of reproduction
         in the form of image files and text files do not, in themselves, have independent economic significance for the rightholders.
         If the ‘independent economic significance’ were contingent on the copyright holder’s not receiving remuneration, there would,
         according to Infopaq, be a contradiction with the purpose of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      32.      The Austrian Government, like Infopaq, believes that the conditions of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 are fulfilled and states that these conditions
         are not limited to intermediate copies which are stored during transmission between the different programmes (software) on
         the Internet. In its opinion, the creation of an image file and its conversion into a text file are ‘transient’ acts because
         these reproductions are of short duration; these acts are at the same time also an ‘integral and essential part of a technological
         process’. The Austrian Government also considers that the use of the works is ‘lawful’ because the extracts from newspaper
         articles do not fulfil the conditions for copyright protection. The process used by Infopaq has the sole purpose of producing
         extracts from newspaper articles on the basis of search words, for which reason they do not, according to the Austrian Government,
         have ‘independent economic significance’.
      
      33.      DDF and the Commission consider on the contrary that the conditions of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 are not fulfilled.
      
      34.      DDF states that Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted in the light of the purpose of that Directive and refers
         in this respect to recitals 9 and 10 in the preamble to the Directive, from which it is apparent that its purpose is to ensure
         a high level of protection for authors who must receive appropriate reward for the use of their works. The provisions of the
         Directive which ensure that protection must be interpreted widely, whilst the provisions which provide for exceptions to that
         protection must be interpreted strictly. 
      
      35.      DDF considers concerning the first condition (‘transient’ act), that the acts of reproduction are not transient because the
         reproductions are lasting and are not deleted, while the definition of ‘transient’ means that the reproductions are of short
         duration. 
      
      36.      Concerning the second condition (‘integral and essential part of a technological process’), DDF states that the purpose of
         that condition is to exclude reproductions which are automatically produced in the context of such a process. In the present
         case, the reproductions are not however produced automatically because the scanning of the articles and conversion of an image
         file into a text file are only a transient stage in the technical processing of these texts. This is therefore not an intermediate
         technological process. Moreover, the reproduction of 11 words is not an ‘integral and essential part of a technological process’
         because those 11 words are printed out.
      
      37.      Concerning the third condition (‘lawful use’), DDF is of the view that use which would otherwise be unlawful cannot become
         lawful under Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. According to DDF, the present case concerns an unlawful use. 
      
      38.      Concerning the fourth condition (‘independent economic significance’), DDF points out that this condition concerns the fact
         that the use of the reproduction in the present case cannot have independent economic significance either for the user (namely
         Infopaq) or for the rightholder. DDF states that the reproductions have independent economic significance for Infopaq because
         it would require DKK 2 to 4 million if the reproduction work was manual rather than automated. The reproductions also have
         independent economic significance for DDF’s members because they could receive increased remuneration through the granting
         of licences for the reproduction of their works. 
      
      39.      The Commission likewise considers that in the present case the conditions of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 are not fulfilled.
         
      
      40.      Concerning the first condition (‘transient’ act), the Commission is of the view that temporary acts of reproduction are transient
         if their duration is short, for example a reproduction made during browsing on the Internet. The Commission considers that
         it is necessary, when deciding whether acts of reproduction are transient, to take into account the technological process
         in the context of which the reproduction takes place and in particular whether a lasting reproduction has been made or not
         during that process. In the context of the process used by Infopaq, a lasting reproduction consisting of the 11 printed words
         has been made and consequently the fact that the image and text files created are deleted when the 11 words are printed does
         not mean that the act of reproduction is transient. The Commission further points out that the fact that the part of the reproduction
         which contains one or several extracts of 11 words is printed is irrelevant in assessing whether the temporary act of reproduction
         can be considered as transient.
      
      41.      Concerning the second condition (‘integral and essential part of a technological process’), the Commission believes that the
         stage of the technological process during which the temporary acts of reproduction are made is irrelevant to whether they
         must be considered as an ‘integral and essential part of a technological process’. The Commission points out that Infopaq
         physically checks the reproduction several times during the process and that it may have copies stored in paper or electronic
         form for a long time after having sent the extracts to its customers. The electronic copies moreover allow use which goes
         beyond simple electronic transmission in a network; in the present case, the electronic copies are in fact the basis for the
         creation of the text files. The Commission also considers that those temporary acts of reproduction cannot be an ‘integral
         and essential part of a technological process’ if they cover manual scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter
         are converted from a printed medium into a digital medium as this procedure goes well beyond what is necessary to produce
         an extract. The Commission is also of the view that printing of an extract is not a temporary act of reproduction and therefore
         cannot be an ‘integral and essential part of a technological process’.
      
      42.      Concerning the third condition (‘lawful use’), the Commission is of the view that ‘lawful use’ does not only cover all types
         of use which do not require the copyright holder’s consent but on the contrary also types of use which the rightholder authorises
         or which are not covered by the exclusive right of the copyright holder or fall within the exceptions to the exclusive right.
         It also states that the process for the production of extracts used by Infopaq is not a lawful use of the works because it
         involves modification of the work with the objective of creating a short text extract.
      
      43.      Concerning the fourth condition (‘independent economic significance’), the Commission points out that the criteria for assessing
         that condition stem from recital 33 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 and that pursuant thereto acts of reproduction do
         not have ‘independent economic significance’ if they do not modify the information and if they do not interfere with lawful
         use of the technology which is widely recognised and used by industry to obtain data on the use of the information. The Commission
         also considers that the process used by Infopaq allows it to increase its productivity because such production of extracts
         is much quicker and cheaper; according to the Commission it is necessary to take account of this fact when assessing whether
         the acts have ‘independent economic significance’. 
      
      C –    Thirteenth question referred
      44.      Infopaq considers concerning the thirteenth question that Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 does not lay down independent conditions
         which could be fulfilled in addition to the conditions of Article 5(1) of that directive; if the conditions of Article 5(1)
         are fulfilled, it is not necessary to examine the conditions of Article 5(5) of the Directive. 
      
      45.      The Austrian Government considers that the conditions of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 are fulfilled, but it does not provide reasons for its
         position. 
      
      46.      DDF considers concerning the thirteenth question that the acts of reproduction do not fulfil the conditions of Article 5(5) of
         Directive 2001/29. Infopaq uses those acts of reproduction to reduce its costs vis-à-vis its competitors. According to DDF,
         acts of reproduction are moreover so extensive and significant that they cannot be regarded as normal exploitation of a work;
         they unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of copyright holders who could obtain remuneration by granting licences
         authorising such a use. 
      
      47.      The Commission considers that in principle it is unnecessary to reply to the thirteenth question because Infopaq’s activities do not fall
         within the exception in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, but it nevertheless offers a reply to that question. It states
         that Article 5(5), known as the ‘three-step test’, is comparable to Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Commission points
         out that in principle the ‘three-step test’ of Article 5(5) must be applied separately from the assessment on the basis of
         Article 5(1), and that the condition of Article 5(5) which concerns ‘normal exploitation of the work’ is similar to the condition
         of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 according to which the temporary act of reproduction must have ‘independent economic
         significance.’ The fundamental question as regards the two conditions referred to is therefore whether the acts of reproduction
         allow the electronic transmission of data without independent economic significance or whether they add such a significance
         which goes beyond the transmission of data. In so far as the acts of reproduction in the present case do have economic significance
         for Infopaq, this is not a matter of normal exploitation of a work, for which reason the conditions of Article 5(5) are not
         fulfilled in the Commission’s view. 
      
      VI –  Assessment of the Advocate General
      A –    Introduction
      48.      The present case concerns the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction right and the exceptions and limitations to
         the reproduction right as regulated by Directive 2001/29, which harmonises certain aspects of copyright and related rights
         in the information society. (13) The reproduction right represents the essence of copyright, (14) the author’s exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the reproduction of his work. The scope of the author’s exclusive right
         vis-à-vis the reproduction depends on the scope of the definition of reproduction of a work.
      
      49.      In the past it was easier to define reproduction, given the limited number of methods of reproduction, (15) but with the development of information technology and the possibility of digital reproduction, there are now more possibilities
         of easier and faster reproduction. Because reproduction is easier and faster it is necessary, on the one hand, to ensure adequate
         protection of copyright; that protection must however and on the other hand be flexible enough not to hinder the development
         or the normal functioning of the new technologies. (16) In order to reply to the questions referred in the present case, it is necessary to take as a basis an appropriate balance
         between protection of copyright which is sufficiently high and at the same time sufficiently flexible.
      
      50.      The questions referred by the national court in the present case can be classified into three categories which will also be
         followed in the structure of this Opinion. The first category, which covers the first question referred, concerns the interpretation
         of the concept of ‘reproduction’ contained in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29. The second category, which covers the second
         to twelfth questions referred, concerns the interpretation of the exception to the reproduction right in Article 5(1) of that
         directive which, under certain conditions, authorises a temporary act of reproduction. The third category, which covers the
         thirteenth question referred, concerns the interpretation of Article 5(5) of the Directive, under which the exceptions and
         limitations to the right of reproduction can only apply in certain special cases which are not contrary to a normal exploitation
         of a work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder. 
      
      51.      In this Opinion, I will first briefly set out the essential characteristics of the process of production of extracts from
         newspaper articles before replying to the questions referred in the context of the analysis of the three categories.
      
      B –    Essential characteristics of the process for the production of extracts from newspaper articles used by Infopaq
      52.      As stated by the national court, it is undisputed in the present case that the process for the production of newspaper articles
         (that is, the ‘data capture process’), as used by Infopaq, undoubtedly covers two acts of reproduction, namely (1) the creation
         of an image file on the basis of the scanning of newspaper articles and (2) the conversion of the image file into a text file.
         However, there is no consensus on whether the reproduction also covers (3) the storing of each search word with the five words
         which precede and follow it and (4) the printing of those 11 words.
      
      53.      I will therefore deal below with the question whether the storing of the search word with the five words which precede and
         follow it and the printing of these 11 words constitutes reproduction within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29.
      
      C –    Interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 (first question referred)
      54.      By its first question, the national court asks essentially if the storing and subsequent printing of an extract from the text
         of a newspaper article containing the search word and the five words which precede and follow it can be considered as a reproduction
         within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29.
      
      55.      Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 provides that Member States must provide for ‘the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit
         direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part’ for authors and
         for their works. It follows therefore from this article that the reproduction of works is not possible without the authorisation
         of the author, irrespective of whether reproduction of all or part of those works is at issue. Article 2 of Directive 2001/29
         does not however define ‘reproduction’ just as it does not define when and under what conditions reproduction is ‘partial’;
         for this reason I will examine the two concepts in the context of the analysis of the first question. 
      
      56.      As is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is necessary, when defining the concepts of ‘reproduction’ and
         ‘reproduction in part’, to take into account the fact that the requirement of uniform application of Community law means that
         the concepts and conditions of provisions of Community law must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout
         the Community where, as in the case of the provisions of Directive 2001/29, there is no express reference to the law of the
         Member States for the purpose of determining their meaning and scope. (17) Given this requirement, I believe that ‘reproduction’ of a work can de defined as fixation of the work in a given information
         medium. (18) ‘Reproduction in part’ can then be understood as fixation of part only of a work in a given information medium. 
      
      57.      It is apparent moreover from the wording of Article 2 of the Directive that the concept of ‘reproduction’ should be construed
         broadly because it covers reproduction which is ‘direct or indirect’ and ‘temporary or permanent’, and reproduction ‘by any
         means and in any form’ and ‘in whole or in part’. The requirement for a broad interpretation also follows from recital 21
         in the preamble to that directive, which provides that the Directive must define ‘the scope of the acts covered by the reproduction
         right with regard to the different beneficiaries’ and that ‘a broad definition of these acts is needed to ensure legal certainty
         within the internal market’. The broad definition of reproduction is necessary to ensure the high level of protection of copyright
         which Directive 2001/29 seeks to establish. (19) An argument in favour of a broad interpretation of ‘reproduction in part’ can also be derived from the broad interpretation
         of ‘reproduction’, if ‘reproduction’ is interpreted broadly it is necessary a maiori ad minus to interpret broadly all types of reproduction, including reproduction in part because only in this way can a high level of protection
         of copyright be ensured.
      
      58.      The interpretation of ‘reproduction in part’ must not however be an absurd or excessively technical one according to which
         any form of reproduction of a work would be included no matter how minimal or insignificant a fragment of the work it is.
         I believe it is necessary, in interpreting that concept, to strike a balance between a technically inspired interpretation
         and the fact that the reproduction in part must also have a content, a distinctive character and – as part of a given work
         – a certain intellectual value, for which reason it is necessary to give it copyright protection. I consider that, to determine
         whether in a given case there is reproduction in part, it is appropriate to take two aspects into account. First, it is necessary
         to establish whether the reproduction in part is actually identical to a part of the original of the work (element of identification).
         In the case of reproduction in part of a newspaper article, that means specifically that it is necessary to determine whether
         the same words are found in the reproduction as in the newspaper article and whether those words are in the same order. Second,
         it must be established whether one can, on the basis of the reproduction in part, recognise the content of the work or determine
         with certainty that it is an exact reproduction in part of a given work (element of recognition). In the case of reproduction
         in part of a newspaper article, that means that one can establish with certainty that the reproduced extract in question is
         indeed taken from a given newspaper article. (20) One cannot therefore define reproduction in part in a strictly quantitative manner (21) or on the basis of a de minimis criterion, which would determine in a precise manner what percentage of a work must be reproduced in order to constitute reproduction
         in part or, in the present case, how many words of a given work suffice to constitute reproduction in part. (22) The existence of reproduction in part must be established on an individual basis. 
      
      59.      According to the criteria laid down in point 58, I believe that in the present case the storing and subsequent printing of
         an extract from a text from a newspaper article which includes the search word and the five words which precede and follow
         it can be defined as reproduction in part of that article within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29. Both the criterion
         of identification and the criterion of recognition are in fact fulfilled. 
      
      60.      First, in the present case, the 11 words which are printed in the extract are the same as the 11 words in the newspaper article;
         their order is also the same as in the article. Secondly, the sequence of 11 words is in my opinion long enough – comparing
         the extract with the newspaper article – to allow it to be stated that that sequence of words in the extract indeed comes
         from a given newspaper article. It must be emphasised that, in the present case, the extracts composed of the search word
         and the five words which precede and follow it have precisely the purpose of facilitating for the reader the location of the
         search word in the article. (23)
      
      61.      It must moreover be noted in the present case that Infopaq prints, for each article, the search word and the five words which
         precede and follow it each time that the word appears in the article. Thus, as DDF rightly points out, (24) most of a newspaper article may therefore be printed which undoubtedly means reproduction in part of that article within
         the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29.
      
      62.      In view of the arguments put forward, in my view the reply to the first question referred is that the storing and subsequent
         printing of an extract from a newspaper article which contains the search word and the five words which precede and follow
         it must be considered as a reproduction within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      D –    Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 (second to twelfth questions referred)
      63.      The national court asks several questions concerning the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, for which reason
         I will consider them together. These are the second to twelfth questions referred by which the national court asks essentially
         whether the process of production of extracts from newspaper articles as used by Infopaq may be applied without the authorisation
         of the copyright holders as it falls within the exception laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which under certain
         conditions exempts temporary acts of reproduction from the reproduction right.
      
      64.       In the context of the following line of argument, I will first set out the content and the purpose of Article 5(1) of Directive
         2001/29, before analysing the individual conditions in that article and the questions pertaining thereto. 
      
      1.      Content and purpose of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29
      65.      Directive 2001/29 provides in Article 5(1) for an exception to the reproduction right for certain temporary acts of reproduction.
         Under Article 5(1), acts of reproduction which fulfil the following conditions are exempted from the reproduction right:
      
      –        the act of reproduction must be temporary;
      –        that temporary act of reproduction must also fulfil the four following conditions: first, it must be transient or incidental,
         secondly, it must be an integral and essential part of a technological process, thirdly, its only purpose must be to enable
         either a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or of related rights
         and, fourthly, the act must have no independent economic significance.
      
      66.      The exception in Article 5(1) was included in Directive 2001/29 in order to exclude from the broad definition of reproduction
         right certain temporary acts of reproduction which are an integral part of a technological process; their sole purpose is
         to enable another form of use of a given work. (25) Recital 33 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 gives as examples of temporary acts of reproduction which must be excluded
         from the reproduction right browsing and the making of ‘cache’ copies including those which enable transmission systems to
         function effectively. (26) Those acts of reproduction are authorised according to that recital ‘provided that the intermediary does not modify the information
         and does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use
         of the information’. If such acts were not excluded from the broad definition of the reproduction right, that would mean that
         in the case of new technologies it would be necessary to obtain the authorisation of the copyright holder for any reproduction
         even if it was of short duration and technically necessary. (27) In practice, that would mean for example that it would be necessary to obtain the authorisation of the copyright holder for
         each act of caching, (28) which allows the normal use of information technology and the Internet thanks to the automatic creation of temporary copies
         of digital data. (29) Having regard to the foregoing, I would like to clarify that the exception in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 does not
         concern only temporary acts of reproduction which take place on the Internet, but on the contrary all acts of reproduction
         which fulfil the general conditions referred to in that article. (30)
      
      67.      I also note that, in the context of the analysis of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, it is necessary to clearly distinguish
         between, on the one hand, temporary acts of reproduction in respect of which it is necessary to examine whether they fulfil
         the conditions of that article and, on the other hand, the forms of use of a given work which those acts make possible. Thus,
         for example, acts of caching enable Internet users to read and inform themselves as to the content of the network. The temporary
         storing in the RAM memory of a computer (31) allows the user to create a copy of an audio or video recording. In the analysis of the basis of Article 5(1) of Directive
         2001/29, it is always necessary to distinguish between temporary acts of reproduction and the final form of use of a given
         work which these temporary acts of reproduction make possible. That distinction will be particularly important for the analysis
         of the third condition of Article 5(1), pursuant to which temporary acts of reproduction must enable lawful use of the work. (32)
      
      2.      Condition for the application of Article 5(1): temporary acts of reproduction
      68.      It is clear from Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 that the exception provided for therein authorises only temporary acts
         of reproduction. The condition for the application of that exception is that a given act of reproduction is temporary; I will
         examine whether that temporary act of reproduction also fulfils the other conditions of that article. Before examining whether
         the process for the production of extracts from newspaper articles used by Infopaq fulfils the individual conditions of that
         article, I must therefore examine which acts of reproduction of that process could even be defined as temporary acts of reproduction.
         
      
      69.      A number of acts of reproduction can be identified in the process of production of extracts from newspaper articles as used
         by Infopaq. The newspaper articles are first scanned, creating an image file which is then converted into a text file; it
         is clear from the facts that the image file is deleted after having been converted into a text file, the latter is deleted
         after the production of the extract from the newspaper article. The search words from the newspaper articles processed in
         this way and the five words which precede and follow them are then stored and printed.
      
      70.      The scanning and conversion of the image file into a text file are therefore only preparatory acts for the storing and printing
         of an extract of 11 words from a newspaper article. The image and text files are deleted during the process or directly afterwards,
         at the end of the process for the production of extracts. The scanning and the conversion of the image file into a text file
         can therefore, in my opinion, be defined as temporary acts of reproduction. 
      
      71.      Concerning the question whether the storing of an extract of 11 words from a newspaper article can be defined as a temporary
         act of reproduction, in my opinion there is not enough information in the order for reference. The national court, in its
         order, states merely that the search word and the five words which precede and follow it are stored, (33) but it does not indicate for how long those words remain stored in the computer’s memory. That fact should therefore be clarified
         by the national court.
      
      72.      However one defines the storing of the extracts of 11 words, the printing of that article cannot in my opinion be defined
         as a temporary act of reproduction. The printing on paper must in fact be treated as a lasting reproduction. (34) Lasting reproduction does not, of course, mean unlimited in time because it may be destroyed, but the user of that reproduction
         alone decides when to destroy it. I note concerning the printing of the extract that this is not an act which only enables
         another use of the work, the situation which the exception provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 is aimed at.
         The printing of an extract from a newspaper article is the final reproduction in the process for the production of extracts
         as applied by Infopaq, for which reason, in the present case, it is particularly important to know whether the final reproduction
         is a lawful use of the work, (35) which the temporary acts of reproduction, carried out in the context of that process, make possible. 
      
      73.      I will examine below whether the scanning of articles, the conversion of image files and text files and the storing of extracts
         of 11 words which enable the printing of extracts of 11 words fulfil the conditions of Article 5(1). 
      
      3.      Examination of the four conditions of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29
      a)      First condition: temporary acts (second to fifth questions) 
      74.      The first condition that a temporary act of reproduction must fulfil in the context of Article 5(1) is that it must be transient
         or incidental. As the national court’s questions in fact concern only whether the acts of reproduction in the present case
         are transient acts, I will limit myself to the interpretation of that condition and will not analyse whether these acts are
         incidental. The second to fifth questions referred concern the interpretation of the condition of transient act.
      
      75.      The national court has expressed the second question in such a way that it asks whether the circumstances under which temporary
         acts of reproduction take place are relevant to whether they can be regarded as transient within the meaning of Article 5(1)
         of Directive 2001/29. It does not specify however in the order for reference to which circumstances the question refers. It
         is not clear whether the national court has in mind the forms of reproduction (by scanner, Optical Character Recognition software
         and storage), the duration of existence of the reproduction or other circumstances. As I do not know precisely to which circumstances
         the national court refers and cannot therefore provide a simple affirmative or negative answer to the question, it seems appropriate
         to reformulate it in order to be able to offer a useful response. 
      
      76.      It is therefore necessary to reformulate the second question in such a way that the national court asks which circumstances
         are relevant for the purposes of determining whether given temporary acts of reproduction can be considered as transient within
         the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      77.      By its third question, the national court asks whether a temporary act of reproduction can be regarded as transient within
         the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, if the reproduction is produced by the processing of a text file on the
         basis of an image file or by a search for text strings on the basis of a text file. The third question must also be partially
         reformulated as the national court asks whether an act of reproduction is temporary if the reproduction is produced by a search
         for ‘text strings on the basis of a text file’. As the mere search for text strings is not a reproduction, it is necessary
         to understand by the third question that the national court asks whether a temporary act of reproduction can be considered
         as transient if the reproduction is produced for example by the processing of a text file on the basis of an image file.
      
      78.      By its fourth question, the national court asks essentially whether a temporary act of reproduction (36) can be considered as transient within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 if part of the reproduction, consisting
         of one or more text extracts of 11 words, is stored.
      
      79.      By its fifth question, the national court asks essentially whether an act of reproduction can be considered as transient within
         the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 if part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11
         words, is printed.
      
      80.      To reply to these questions, it is first necessary to examine the significance of the fact that a temporary act of reproduction
         is transient.
      
      81.      An act of reproduction is transient in my opinion where the reproduction only exists for a very short period. (37) Of course, the question which immediately arises is what the difference is between a transient act of reproduction and a
         temporary act of reproduction. In my view, the difference is that a transient act of reproduction lasts for a very brief period
         while a temporary act of reproduction can last for a longer period. (38) Transient acts of reproduction are therefore temporary acts of reproduction which last for an exceptionally short time, which
         are ephemeral and which at the same time disappear after arising. (39) The duration of temporary acts of reproduction is certainly limited in time but can be longer than the duration of transient
         acts of reproduction. (40) It is of course very difficult, if not completely impossible, to determine exactly from the outset for how long a reproduction
         must exist for it to be definable as transient; that must be determined on a case-by-case basis and taking into account all
         of the circumstances of the case.
      
      82.      In my view the answer to the second question referred is therefore that the decisive factor which is relevant to whether a
         given act of reproduction can be considered as transient within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 is that the
         reproduction only lasts for a very brief period, even if it is necessary during the assessment to take into account all of
         the circumstances of the individual case. 
      
      83.      In the present case, the image file which is created during the scanning of the newspaper article, like the text file which
         is created when the image file is converted, is subsequently deleted when the extract from the newspaper article is produced.
         Infopaq states in its written observations that the required duration is, at the most, 30 seconds. In my view, it can be found
         in the present case, on the basis of the fact that the required duration is exceptionally short and that the two files are
         deleted, that transient acts of reproduction are involved. 
      
      84.      The answer to the third question referred must in my view therefore be that if a temporary act of reproduction is carried
         out by processing a text file on the basis of an image file and if those two files are deleted, in circumstances such as those
         of the present case, that act of reproduction must be considered as transient within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive
         2001/29. 
      
      85.      Concerning the storing of an extract from a newspaper article, I have already indicated at point 71 of this Opinion that the
         national court, in its order, does not state for how long the extract of 11 words is stored.
      
      86.      The answer to the fourth question referred must in my view therefore be that the national court must, on the basis of the
         criteria laid down in the reply to the second question referred, determine whether the act of reproduction can be considered
         as transient within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, where part of the reproduction which consists of one
         or more extracts of 11 words is stored. 
      
      87.      Concerning the printing of an extract from a newspaper article, I have already indicated at point 72 of this Opinion that
         in that case the act of reproduction is not temporary and that act cannot therefore a fortiori be considered as a transient act of reproduction. 
      
      88.      In my view the answer to the fifth question referred should therefore be that an act of reproduction cannot be considered
         as transient within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 if, in circumstances such as those of the present case,
         part of the reproduction which consists of one or more extracts of 11 words is printed.
      
      b)      Second condition: integral and essential part of a technological process (sixth, seventh and eighth questions)
      89.      The second condition which must be fulfilled by a temporary act of reproduction in the context of Article 5(1) is that it
         must be an integral and essential part of a technological process. The interpretation of that condition in connection with
         the scanning and conversion of an image file into a text file is the subject of the sixth and seventh questions referred,
         while the eighth question referred concerns the printing of an extract from a newspaper article. The national court does not
         ask explicitly whether the storing of an extract from a newspaper article is also an integral and essential part of a technological
         process. 
      
      90.      By its sixth question, the national court asks essentially whether the stage of the technological process at which temporary
         acts of reproduction take place is relevant to whether they can be considered as an integral and essential part of a technological
         process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      91.      By its seventh question, the national court asks essentially whether temporary acts of reproduction can be an integral and
         essential part of a technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, if they cover manual scanning
         of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter are transformed from a printed medium into a digital medium.
      
      92.      By its eighth question, the national court asks essentially whether temporary acts of reproduction can be an integral and
         essential part of a technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 if they consist of a printed
         reproduction which contains one or more text extracts of 11 words. 
      
      93.      For the reply to the sixth and seventh questions, it is first necessary to examine when a given act of reproduction is an
         integral and essential part of a technological process. (41) It should in particular be examined to what extent the interpretation of the condition that the temporary act of reproduction
         must be an integral and essential part of a technological process must be restrictive. It is apparent from legal commentators
         that the fundamental dilemma when interpreting that condition is whether the act of reproduction constitutes an integral and
         essential part of a technological process only when that act is a necessary element of the technological process and therefore
         without which that technological process would not be possible, or whether other acts which are not a necessary element of
         that technological process also fall within that category. (42)
      
      94.      In my opinion – and in that of the majority of legal commentators (43) – it is not necessary for the act of reproduction to be an indispensable element of a given technological process for it
         to constitute its integral and essential part. This may be seen from the explanatory memorandum to the proposal for Directive
         2001/29, in which the Commission states that the purpose of Article 5(1) is to exclude temporary acts of reproduction ‘which
         technology dictates’. (44) It may also be deduced that the stage of the technological process at which the temporary act of reproduction takes place
         is irrelevant.
      
      95.      The answer to the sixth question referred must in my view therefore be that the stage of the technological process at which
         temporary acts of reproduction take place is irrelevant to whether they constitute an integral and essential part of a technological
         process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      96.      To reply to the seventh question in this case, it is necessary to examine what, in the context of the process for the production
         of extracts from newspaper articles, constitutes a technological process. Does technological process cover only the scanning
         and the conversion of the image file into a text file or on the contrary does it cover the entire process for the production
         of extracts from newspaper articles?
      
      97.      In my view, the technological process in this case covers the entire process for the production of extracts from newspaper
         articles. The scanning and the conversion of the image file into a text file, and the storing and printing of the search word
         with the five words preceding and following it therefore fall within that process. All of the elements mentioned are therefore
         part of the same technological process. From that point of view, the scanning of articles and the conversion of the image
         file into a text file are in any case an integral and essential part of the technological process. 
      
      98.      The answer to the seventh question referred must in my view therefore be that where temporary acts of reproduction consist
         of manual scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter are transformed from a printed medium into a digital medium,
         in circumstances such as those of the present case, those acts of reproduction constitute an integral and essential part of
         a technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      99.      To reply to the eighth question, it is necessary to clarify whether the printing of a reproduction consisting of one or more
         text extracts of 11 words can be an integral and essential part of a technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1)
         of Directive 2001/29. As I have already indicated at point 97 of this Opinion, the printing of an extract from a newspaper
         article must in principle also be considered as an integral and essential part of a technological process. It must however
         be noted in that respect that printing is not a temporary act of reproduction, for which reason it does not fulfil the condition
         for the application of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      100. The answer to the eighth question referred must in my view therefore be that, in circumstances such as those of the present
         case, the printing of an extract is not a temporary act of reproduction, for which reason it cannot fall within Article 5(1)
         of Directive 2001/29 and consequently it is irrelevant whether that act of reproduction can be an integral and essential part
         of a technological process. 
      
      c)      Third condition: acts the purpose of which is to enable a lawful use (ninth and tenth questions)
      101. The third condition of Article 5(1) requires that the sole purpose of the temporary act of reproduction is to enable either
         transmission in a network between third parties thanks to an intermediary, or a lawful use of the work. As it is clear that
         in the present case there is no transmission in a network, and as the question referred only concerns the part of the third
         condition which concerns lawful use of the work, I will concentrate in my analysis on examining the condition of lawful use.
         The ninth and tenth questions referred concern the condition of lawful use.
      
      i)      General remarks on the condition of lawful use (ninth question)
      102. By its ninth question, the national court asks whether lawful use of a work within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive
         2001/29 covers any form of use of a work which does not require the copyright holder’s consent.
      
      103. To reply to the ninth question referred, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the condition of lawful use of a work within
         the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      104. It is apparent from recital 33 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 that the use of a work is considered to be lawful (45) ‘where it is authorised by the rightholder or not restricted by law’. It may be concluded on the basis of that recital that
         the use of a work is lawful in three cases. First, the use is lawful where it is a form of use of a work for which the copyright holder’s authorisation is not required – for
         example the reading of newspaper articles. If however there is use of a work in a form of reproduction such as that in the
         present case or another form of use for which in principle the copyright holder’s authorisation is required, (46) the use is lawful; secondly, if the copyright holder has explicitly authorised the use; or, thirdly, if that use is authorised pursuant to one of the exceptions and limitations laid down in Article 5(2) and (3) (47) of Directive 2001/29, if the Member State in question has transposed that exception or limitation into national law and if
         it meets the requirements of Article 5(5) of the Directive.
      
      105. The answer to the ninth question referred in my opinion is therefore that the lawful use of a work within the meaning of Article
         5(1) of Directive 2001/29 covers any form of use of a work which does not require the copyright holder’s consent or which
         is explicitly authorised by the copyright holder; in the event of use of a work in the form of a reproduction, the copyright
         holder’s consent is not required if the reproduction is authorised on the basis of one of the exceptions laid down by Article
         5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29, if the Member State concerned has transposed that exception or limitation into national
         law and if the reproduction meets the requirements of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      ii)    Lawful use in the present case (tenth question)
      106. By its tenth question, the national court asks whether the lawful use of a work within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive
         2001/29 covers the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, the subsequent processing of the reproduction
         and the storing and possible printing of the reproduction consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, for use in
         the business’s summary writing, even where the copyright holder has not authorised that activity. The tenth question must
         in my view be reformulated, (48) and I will therefore set out below the reasons for the reformulation. 
      
      –       Reformulation of the tenth question
      107. The tenth question referred is set out in such a way that the condition of lawful use concerns all of the acts of reproduction
         which take place during the process of production of extracts from newspaper articles used by Infopaq. Formulated in this
         way, the question referred follows from a misunderstanding of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. In fact the condition of
         lawful use of a work cannot be interpreted as meaning that the temporary acts of reproduction must constitute in themselves
         a lawful use of the work; that condition must on the contrary be understood as meaning that the temporary acts of reproduction
         must enable another use of the work which must itself be lawful. To take an example: if an education establishment makes a copy during
         a course and for illustration purposes – that is, a reproduction – of a given work, such as a video recording of an educational
         programme, and during that act of reproduction a copy of the video recording is temporarily registered in the RAM memory of
         the computer, that temporary copy which is created in the RAM memory enables a reproduction for illustration purposes during
         the course which is lawful pursuant to Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29. (49) The temporary copy which is created in the RAM memory is however lawful only if all of the other conditions of Article 5(1)
         of Directive 2001/29 are fulfilled, that is, if it is transient or incidental, if it is an integral and essential part of
         a technological process and if it has no independent economic significance. If the condition of lawful use of Article 5(1)
         of Directive 2001/29 were to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary act of reproduction had to be a lawful use, that
         would mean that, for the purposes of the lawfulness of that temporary act of reproduction, the other conditions of that article
         would no longer need to be fulfilled and Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 would be devoid of purpose. 
      
      108. When analysing Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, it is therefore necessary to clearly distinguish between the temporary acts
         of reproduction which must fulfil all of the conditions of that article and the final act of reproduction or another form
         of use of the work which those temporary acts of reproduction make possible and which must constitute a lawful use of the
         work. In the present case, the use of the work, that is, the newspaper article, takes the form of the printing of an extract
         from a newspaper article composed of 11 words.
      
      109. It is not explicitly indicated in the order for reference whether those extracts from newspaper articles are used as an internal
         basis for the drafting of summaries of newspaper articles or only to assist in the choice of newspaper articles summaries
         of which are drawn up. There is no information in the order for reference as to the method of production of summaries or whether
         they may contain a word-for-word quotation of the extract of 11 words. As the facts are not clear, it cannot be ruled out
         that Infopaq sends the extracts of 11 words directly to its customers, thus allowing them to deduce from the context which
         newspaper articles would be of interest to them. In any case, the extracts of 11 words are used in that way or in another
         in the context of Infopaq’s commercial activity of drawing up summaries of newspaper articles.
      
      110. Apart from that, it cannot in my view be claimed in the present case that the drawing up of summaries, which Infopaq sends
         to its customers, constitutes a use of the work and that the condition of lawful use of the work within the meaning of Article
         5(1) of Directive 2001/29 is fulfilled, to the extent that the drawing up of summaries is permissible under Danish law. One
         cannot understand from the present case that the process of production of extracts from newspaper articles, as used by Infopaq,
         makes possible the drawing up of summaries. It is certainly true that the process for the production of those extracts simplifies,
         probably to a significant extent, the drawing up of summaries, but it cannot be maintained that it makes it possible. Infopaq could also produce summaries of press articles entirely without the use of the extracts of 11 words prepared beforehand.
         The drawing up of summaries is moreover not necessarily the consequence of the process for the production of the extracts
         of 11 words, for which reason one cannot interpret the drawing up of summaries as the last stage of the process for the production
         of the extracts which the latter makes possible.
      111. The tenth question referred must therefore be understood as meaning that the national court asks essentially whether the scanning
         of entire newspaper articles, the subsequent processing of the reproduction and the storing of the work, consisting of one
         or more text extracts of 11 words, enables a lawful use of the work within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29,
         in so far as the text extracts of 11 words are printed and used in the business’s activity of drawing up summaries of newspaper
         articles, although the holder of the relevant rights has not given authorisation. 
      
      –       Analysis of and reply to the tenth question
      112. For an analysis of this question, the general point may first be made that the use of newspaper articles in the form of a
         reproduction in part, that is, of extracts of 11 words, is lawful in two cases: if the copyright holder explicitly authorises
         that reproduction in part, or if that reproduction in part can be justified on the basis of one of the exceptions and limitations
         to the reproduction right laid down by Directive 2001/29 in Article 5(2) and (3), if Denmark has provided for them in national
         law and if it fulfils the requirements of Article 5(5) of that Directive. 
      
      113. In the present case, it is evident from the facts that the copyright holders have not given their authorisation for the production
         of the extracts from newspaper articles and the production of those extracts cannot be lawful on that basis. I will therefore
         examine below whether in the present case the use of newspaper articles in the form of the reproduction of extracts from those
         newspaper articles can be lawful under one of the exceptions and limitations of Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29.
         I will examine whether that act of reproduction meets the requirements of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 in the context
         of the reply to the thirteenth question referred, which concerns the interpretation of Article 5(5) of that Directive. 
      
      114. Two points should be made concerning the exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right contained in Article 5(2) and
         (3). First, the exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5(2) and (3) are optional and the Member States only transpose
         them into national law if they choose to. This is evident from the introductory sentence to Article 5(2) and (3) of the Directive,
         which provides that the Member States ‘may’ provide for exceptions and limitations. (50) In the present case, the national court has not provided any information as to the exceptions and limitations which are provided
         for in national legislation in Denmark, for which reason I will merely analyse in this Opinion how the various exceptions
         and limitations should be interpreted; the final analysis on the basis of those exceptions and limitations has however to
         be carried out by the national court. In the present case, the national court will therefore have to examine which of the
         exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29 have been provided for by Denmark in
         its national legislation and establish whether a reproduction in part of newspaper articles in the form of extracts of 11
         words can constitute a lawful use of the newspaper articles.
      
      115. Secondly, the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29 are – as is apparent from
         recital 32 (51) – listed exhaustively, which means that the Member States cannot introduce into national law exceptions and limitations other
         than those laid down by the Directive. Denmark cannot therefore make provision in its national law for the reproduction in
         part of newspaper articles in the form of extracts from those articles to be permissible in so far as it is used in the production
         of summaries, if that action is not permissible on the basis of one of the exceptions and limitations to the reproduction
         right laid down by Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      116. The only exception which could prima facie be relevant in the present case is that provided for in Article 5(3)(c), (52) which authorises reproduction in the press and the use of a work in connection with the reporting of current events. (53) That article provides for two exceptions to the reproduction right. The first exception that it authorises is ‘reproduction
         by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious
         topics … in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated’.
         The second exception that it authorises is ‘use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current
         events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated,
         unless this turns out to be impossible’.
      
      117. The fact remains, in my view, that none of the exceptions provided for in Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29 – even if Denmark
         has provided for them in its national legislation – can justify a reproduction in part of newspaper articles in the form of
         extracts of 11 words. 
      
      118. The first exception which is provided for in Article 5(3)(c) cannot justify such reproduction as it is not reproduction in
         the press as newspapers and magazines traditionally come under. (54) The present case does not concern distribution to the public or making published articles available to the public. (55) Communication to the public in fact includes transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless means,
         including broadcasting. (56) Making available to the public means on the contrary making available a work to members of the public who are not present
         at the place where the act of publication originates. (57) Even if Infopaq sent its customers extracts from newspaper articles by email, this would not constitute communication to
         the public (58) or making available to the public. (59)
      
      119. The reproduction in part of newspaper articles in the form of extracts thereof cannot therefore be justified on the basis
         of the second exception provided for in Article 5(3)(c) of the Directive, which authorises the reporting of current events.
         That exception in fact authorises the use of works in connection with the independent activity of providing information on
         current events; (60) a given work may therefore be used in the context of providing information on a given current event. Moreover, if it was
         allowed that newspaper articles could be reproduced on the basis of the exception which authorises reporting of current events,
         that would run counter to the purpose of the first exception provided for in Article 5(3)(c), which specifically concerns
         reproduction, communication to the public and making available of articles on current economic, political or religious topics
         or other subject-matter of the same character and which, as regards those articles, constitutes the lex specialis in relation to the second exception in that article.
      
      120. The reproduction in part of newspaper articles cannot therefore constitute lawful use of those newspaper articles on the basis
         of one of the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      121. The answer to the tenth question referred must in my view therefore be that the scanning of entire newspaper articles, subsequent
         processing of the reproduction and the storing of the reproduction which contains one or more text extracts of 11 words, in
         circumstances such as those of the present case, do not enable a lawful use of the work within the meaning of Article 5(1)
         of Directive 2001/29, as the text extracts of 11 words are printed and used in the business’s activity of writing of summaries
         of newspaper articles, although the rightholder has not authorised that activity. 
      
      d)      Fourth condition: activities which have no independent economic significance (eleventh and twelfth questions)
      122. The fourth condition that a temporary act of reproduction must fulfil pursuant to Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 to make
         it possible to exclude it from the reproduction right is that it must have no independent economic significance. (61)
      
      123. The eleventh and twelfth questions referred concern the interpretation of that condition. By its eleventh question, the national
         court asks what criterion should be applied to assess whether temporary acts of reproduction have independent economic significance
         within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. By its twelfth question, it asks whether the user’s efficiency gains
         due to temporary acts of reproduction can be taken into account in assessing whether those acts have independent economic
         significance within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. 
      
      124. The condition of independent economic significance is not defined in Directive 2001/29. Nor can the meaning of that condition
         be clarified from the explanatory memorandum to the proposal for the Directive, from which it is apparent that acts of reproduction
         which have independent economic significance are not covered by the Directive. (62) It is appropriate, when interpreting that condition, to clarify what is meant by stating that a given act of reproduction
         has economic significance, what is meant by stating that that economic significance is independent, and the person in respect
         of which (63) that act of reproduction must have independent economic significance. 
      
      125. Economic significance means that the temporary act of reproduction must involve an economic advantage for the person who carries
         it out; indirectly – or, if the copyright holder receives adequate compensation – that that act of reproduction also confers
         an economic advantage on the copyright holder. (64) The economic advantage may be, for example, a profit or a reduction in costs, an increase in productivity or similar advantages. (65)
      
      126. The key issue in determining whether that economic significance is independent is in my opinion whether the economic advantages
         stem from the temporary acts of reproduction. There would, for example, be such independent economic significance if Infopaq
         sent to its customers, in addition to summaries of newspaper articles, scanned copies of those newspaper articles for which
         it received payment, or if Infopaq’s customers had access to the scanned copies, for example via an Internet link. There would
         also be independent economic significance if Infopaq carried out scanning of newspaper articles as such which it sent to its
         customers by email and for which it received remuneration from its customers. (66) The mere possibility that Infopaq could obtain a concrete economic advantage from those two acts of reproduction is not sufficient
         to fulfil the condition of independent economic significance; the company must actually carry out that activity.
      
      127. The answer to the eleventh question referred must in my opinion therefore be that in assessing whether temporary acts of reproduction
         have independent economic significance within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, it is necessary to establish
         whether an economic advantage stems directly from the temporary acts of reproduction.
      
      128. In the present case, the scanning of newspaper articles, the conversion of the image file into a text file and the storing
         of extracts (67)from newspaper articles mean for Infopaq a reduction in costs, an increase in productivity and saving of time. It is not disputed
         that those acts of reproduction have economic significance for Infopaq, but in my opinion they do not have independent economic
         significance. In the present case, for there to be independent economic significance, it is not sufficient that the act of
         reproduction only contributes, in a general manner, to making Infopaq more efficient in the production of extracts. The scanning,
         the conversion of the image file into a text file and the storing of extracts from newspaper articles are in fact only part
         of a larger process for the production of extracts and do not have independent economic significance. (68) In the present case, the independent economic significance of the scanning, the conversion of the image file into a text
         file and the storing of extracts from newspaper articles must be assessed separately from the economic significance that the
         final printing of extracts from newspaper articles has for Infopaq. In my opinion it must therefore be found that the scanning
         of articles, the conversion of the image file into a text file and the storing of extracts do not have independent economic
         significance. 
      
      129. In my opinion the answer to the twelfth question referred is therefore that the user’s efficiency gains from temporary acts
         of reproduction in circumstances such as those of the present case cannot be taken into account in assessing whether those
         acts have independent economic significance within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      4.      Conclusion concerning the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 
      130. On the basis of the analysis of the conditions of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and of the replies to the second to twelfth
         questions referred, I find that it is not possible to justify, on the basis of the exceptions to the reproduction right provided
         for in Article 5(1) of that Directive, the acts of reproduction which are produced during the process for the production of
         newspaper articles as used by Infopaq. This means in practice that Infopaq must obtain the copyright holder’s consent to the
         production of the extracts. 
      
      E –    Interpretation of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 (thirteenth question referred)
      131. By its thirteenth question, the national court asks essentially whether the scanning by a business of entire newspaper articles,
         subsequent processing of the reproduction and the storing and printing of the reproduction, which consists of one or more
         text extracts of 11 words, without the rightholder’s consent, can be regarded as special cases which are not contrary to a
         normal exploitation of the newspaper articles and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder
         within the meaning of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      132. Given that I have already established during the analysis of the conditions provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29
         that the acts of reproduction in the present case do not fulfil the conditions of that article of the Directive, in principle
         it is not necessary to investigate whether those acts of reproduction fulfil the conditions provided for in Article 5(5).
         Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 in fact sets out additional conditions which acts of reproduction must fulfil, if they fulfil
         the conditions provided for in Article 5(1). In case the Court finds that the acts of reproduction carried out by Infopaq
         fulfil the conditions provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, I will briefly examine below whether those acts of
         reproduction fulfil the conditions provided for in Article 5(5) of the Directive. 
      
      133. In the present case, in my opinion it is necessary, when analysing Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29, to distinguish once
         more between final acts of reproduction – the printing of extracts from newspaper articles – and the acts of reproduction
         which those final acts of reproduction make possible – the scanning of newspaper articles, the conversion of the image file
         into a text file and the storing of the extract from the newspaper article. If the Court in fact finds during its consideration
         of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 that the final act of reproduction which the temporary acts of reproduction make possible
         can constitute a lawful use of the work under one of the exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right provided for
         in Article 5(2) and (3) of the Directive, it would be necessary as regards fulfilment of the condition of lawful use to examine
         whether that final act of reproduction fulfilled the conditions provided for in Article 5(5) of the Directive. Only then would
         the condition of lawful use provided for in Article 5(1) of the Directive actually be fulfilled. It is only when that condition
         is fulfilled – along with all of the other conditions provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 – that one can examine
         whether the conditions of Article 5(5) of the Directive are also fulfilled by the acts of reproduction which enable that final
         use. I will therefore first examine below whether the final act of reproduction (the printing of extracts from newspaper articles)
         fulfils the conditions of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 before further looking at whether those conditions are fulfilled
         by the acts of reproduction which that act makes possible (scanning of newspaper articles, conversion of the image file into
         a text file and storing (69) of the extract from the newspaper article). 
      
      1.       Does the printing of extracts from newspaper articles fulfil the conditions provided for in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29?
         
      
      134. It is apparent from Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 that the exceptions and limitations provided for in that article apply,
         first, only in clearly specified special cases which, secondly, are not contrary to a normal exploitation of the work and
         which, thirdly, do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders. (70) Those conditions are cumulative. The conditions provided for in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29, which are regularly referred
         to by legal commentators as the ‘three-step test’, (71) were included in the Directive following the model of international treaties, in particular Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention, (72) Article 10 of the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (73) and Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement. (74) As is apparent from recital 44 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, the exceptions and limitations provided for by the Directive
         must be applied in a manner consistent with international obligations. (75) Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 must therefore be interpreted taking account of those international treaties.
      
      135. The first condition provided for in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 is that the exceptions and limitations apply only in
         particular given cases. That condition means that the exceptions and limitations must be clearly defined and must be based
         on specified particular objectives. (76) Concerning the exception provided for in Article 5(3)(c), the particular objective on which that exception is based is informing
         the public about current events; it is however also the case that that this exception does not exclude the at least indirectly
         commercial objective of providing information on current events. (77)
      
      136. If the Court finds that the reproduction of extracts from newspaper articles constitutes a lawful use pursuant to Article
         5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29, that would implicitly be on the assumption that the reproduction of extracts from newspaper
         articles constitutes informing the public. It can certainly be stated that that reproduction in part of newspaper articles
         in the form of extracts does not correspond entirely to that objective and that its primary objective is commercial, the provision
         of information being a secondary objective. However, when, for example, a journal publishes an article from another journal,
         when one hears on the radio a part of a newspaper article or records a certain part of an exhibition during a television programme
         on that exhibition, these media use the works not only to inform the public, but also on the contrary for commercial advantage.
         One can therefore, in my opinion, also state concerning the reproduction of extracts from newspaper articles that, when they
         are used to draw up summaries of those articles, they are used to inform the public. In my opinion it can therefore be found
         that this is a special case within the meaning of the first condition of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29. The first condition
         of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 is therefore fulfilled as regards the printing of extracts from newspaper articles. 
      
      137. The second condition provided for in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 requires that the particular cases in which the exceptions
         and limitations apply are not contrary to a normal exploitation of the work. The normal exploitation of newspaper articles
         means that the newspapers in which the articles are published are sold and that a profit is made therefrom; the economic advantages
         which may be made from newspaper articles must go to the copyright holders. (78) If the effect on the newspaper market is noticeable and the sale of newspapers diminishes, this goes against normal exploitation. (79)
      
      138. The reproduction of extracts from newspaper articles allows Infopaq to identify rapidly which articles are important and of
         which a summary must be drawn up. Infopaq can thus draw up summaries of all newspaper articles, for which reason its customers no longer need to buy newspapers. (80) The reproduction of extracts from newspaper articles therefore in my opinion affects the normal exploitation of those newspapers
         and the second condition of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 is consequently not fulfilled. 
      
      139. The third condition provided for in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 is that the particular cases in which the exceptions
         and limitations apply do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders. In the context of the third
         condition, the mere effect on the legitimate interests of the rightholders – who are ultimately affected by each exception
         and limitation – is not sufficient; that effect cannot on the contrary be unjustified. (81) On this occasion the quantitative and qualitative nature of the effect must be taken into account. (82)
      
      140. In the present case, an extract from a newspaper article is produced for all of the articles containing the relevant search
         words. If the search word appears frequently in those articles, that means quantitatively that extracts from newspaper articles
         may be produced for numerous articles. If several different search words appear in the same article, that also means that
         several extracts may be produced for an article. I have already found when analysing the second condition of Article 5(5)
         of Directive 2001/29 that the reproduction of those extracts has an indirect effect when summaries are produced on the sale
         of the newspaper articles, for which reason the copyright holders also have a legitimate interest in the profits made by Infopaq.
         Given that the extracts are produced for a large number of articles, that constitutes in my opinion an unreasonable prejudice
         to the legitimate interests of the rightholders. In my view it must therefore be found, concerning the printing of extracts
         from newspaper articles, that the third condition provided for in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 is not fulfilled either.
         
      
      141. The consequence of the fact that the printing of extracts from newspaper articles does not fulfil the third and fourth conditions
         provided for in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 is that it cannot constitute a lawful use of the newspaper articles within
         the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive. 
      
      2.       Do temporary acts of reproduction fulfil the conditions of Article 5(5)? 
      142. As I found in point 141 of this Opinion that the printing of extracts from newspaper articles cannot constitute a lawful use
         of newspaper articles, it should be found that the scanning, the conversion of the image file into a text file and the storing (83) of extracts from newspaper articles do not enable a lawful use of the work and that thus they do not fulfil the conditions
         provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. In so far as those acts of reproduction cannot be justified on the basis
         of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, they cannot be justified independently on the basis of the conditions provided for in
         Article 5(5) of that Directive. The conclusion must therefore be that the temporary acts of reproduction do not fulfil the
         conditions of Article 5(5) of that directive.
      
      3.       Conclusion concerning the interpretation of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29
      143. Having regard to the analysis undertaken of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29, in my opinion the answer to the thirteenth
         question referred should be that the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, the subsequent processing
         of the reproduction, and the storing and printing of part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of
         11 words, in circumstances such as those of the present case, cannot be considered as particular cases which are not contrary
         to a normal exploitation of newspaper articles and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder
         within the meaning of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      F –    Conclusion
      144. The analysis undertaken in this Opinion has shown that all of the acts carried out by Infopaq in the context of the process
         for the production of extracts from newspaper articles are acts of reproduction within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive
         2001/29. Those acts of reproduction cannot be permissible on the basis of an exception to the reproduction right as provided
         for by Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and they do not fulfil the requirements of Article 5(5) of that directive. Infopaq
         must therefore obtain the copyright holder’s consent to carry out those acts. 
      
      VII –  Conclusion 
      145. Having regard to all of the foregoing, I suggest that the Court reply as follows and in the same order to the questions referred
         by the Højesteret, in the circumstances of the case:
      
      (1)      The storing and subsequent printing of an extract from a newspaper article which contains the search word and the five words
         which precede and follow it must be considered as a reproduction within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC of
         the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
         rights in the information society.
      
      (2)      The decisive factor which is relevant to whether a given act of reproduction can be considered as transient within the meaning
         of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 is that the reproduction only lasts for a very brief period, even if it is necessary
         during the assessment to take into account all of the circumstances of the individual case.
      
      (3)      If a temporary act of reproduction is carried out by processing a text file on the basis of an image file and if those two
         files are deleted, in circumstances such as those of the present case, that act of reproduction must be considered as transient
         within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      (4)      The national court must, on the basis of the criteria laid down in the reply to the second question referred, determine whether
         the act of reproduction can be considered as transient within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, where part
         of the reproduction which consists of one or more extracts of 11 words is stored.
      
      (5)      An act of reproduction cannot be considered as transient within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 if, in circumstances
         such as those of the present case, part of the reproduction which consists of one or more extracts of 11 words is printed.
      
      (6)      The stage of the technological process at which temporary acts of reproduction take place is irrelevant to whether they constitute
         an integral and essential part of a technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      (7)      Where temporary acts of reproduction consist of manual scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter are transformed
         from a printed medium into a digital medium, in circumstances such as those of the present case, those acts of reproduction
         constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
         
      
      (8)      In circumstances such as those of the present case, the printing of an extract is not a temporary act of reproduction, for
         which reason it cannot fall within Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and consequently it is irrelevant whether that act of
         reproduction can be an integral and essential part of a technological process.
      
      (9)      The lawful use of a work within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 covers any form of use of a work which does
         not require the copyright holder’s consent or which is explicitly authorised by the copyright holder; in the event of use
         of a work in the form of a reproduction, the copyright holder’s consent is not required if the reproduction is authorised
         on the basis of one of the exceptions laid down by Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29, if the Member State concerned
         has transposed that exception or limitation into national law and if the reproduction meets the requirements of Article 5(5)
         of Directive 2001/29.
      
      (10)      The scanning of entire newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduction and the storing of the reproduction which
         contains one or more text extracts of 11 words, in circumstances such as those of the present case, do not enable a lawful
         use of the work within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, as the text extracts of 11 words are printed and
         used in the business’s activity of writing of summaries of newspaper articles, although the rightholder has not authorised
         that activity.
      
      (11)      In assessing whether temporary acts of reproduction have independent economic significance within the meaning of Article 5(1)
         of Directive 2001/29, it is necessary to establish whether an economic advantage stems directly from the temporary acts of
         reproduction.
      
      (12)      The user’s efficiency gains from temporary acts of reproduction in circumstances such as those of the present case cannot
         be taken into account in assessing whether those acts have independent economic significance within the meaning of Article
         5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      (13)      The scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, the subsequent processing of the reproduction, and the
         storing and printing of part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, in circumstances such
         as those of the present case, cannot be considered as particular cases which are not contrary to a normal exploitation of
         newspaper articles and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder within the meaning of Article
         5(5) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      1 –	Original language: Slovenian.
      
      2 –	OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
      
      3 –      This footnote only concerns the Slovenian version of this Opinion.
      
      4 –	Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret, No 763 of 30 June 2006 (consolidated version of the Law on copyright, No 763 of 30
         June 2006). The translation into English of the consolidated version of the Danish Law on copyright is available on the website
         of the Danish Minister for Culture at: www.kum.dk/sw832.asp.
      
      5 –	The order for reference does not explain how these summaries are drawn up or what their exact content is. It is also not
         clearly indicated what the link is between these summaries and the clippings of newspaper articles composed of the search
         word and the five words preceding and following it (see point 15 of this Opinion). It is not explicitly indicated anywhere
         in the order for reference that the extracts of 11 words are used exclusively for internal purposes, or whether it is also
         possible that these extracts are sent to Infopaq’s customers.
      
      6 –	This is a TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) file.
      
      7 –	This is an OCR (Optical Character Recognition) server.
      
      8 –	ASCII is the acronym for American Standard Code for Information Interchange.
      
      9 –	This footnote only concerns the Slovenian version of this Opinion.
      
      10 –      This footnote only concerns the Slovenian version of this Opinion.
      
      11 –      In its questions, the national court uses the expression ‘Infosoc Directive’ for Directive 2001/29; ‘Infosoc’ is the abbreviation
         of the English expression ‘information society’. Because of the subsequent use of the abbreviation for that Directive in this
         Opinion I will use the expression ‘Directive 2001/29’.
      
      12 –	For the Austrian Government’s position, see point 26 of this Opinion.
      
      13 –	Directive 2001/29 places particular emphasis on protection of copyright and related rights in the information society but
         is not limited to that area. Its purpose is, on the one hand, through harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
         rights in the information society, to participate in the functioning of the internal market and, on the other hand, to implement
         certain international obligations in this area. Concerning the latter point, this means primarily, as may be seen from recital
         15 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, the implementation of obligations under two international conventions adopted in
         the context of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the ‘WIPO Copyright Treaty’ and the ‘WIPO Performances
         and Phonograms Treaty’. See, in the legal literature, for example, Lehmann, M., ‘The EC Directive on the Harmonisation of
         Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society – A Short Comment’, International review of industrial property and copyright law, No 5/2003, p. 521.
      
      14 –	See, to that effect, the Green Paper ‘Copyright and related rights in the information society’ COM(95) 382 final p. 49;
         Vivant, M., ‘Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information
         society’, in Lodder, A.R., Kaspersen, H.W.K. (eds), Edirectives: Guide to European Union Law on E-Commerce, Kluwer Law International, Haag 2002, p. 98; Lehmann, M., op. cit. (footnote 13), p. 523, footnote 18.
      
      15 –	See, to that effect, the Green Paper ‘Copyright and related rights in the information society’ COM(95) 382 final.
      
      16 –	Allowing the development and normal functioning of new technologies means, for example, that reproduction which is technically
         necessary for the normal functioning of the Internet or for the use of software is authorised. That is clearly apparent from,
         for example, recital 33 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, under which it is necessary to exclude from the reproduction
         right acts which enable browsing and the making of ‘cache’ copies; the requirement that the reproduction right does not make
         impossible the normal functioning of new technologies also follows from other directives such as Council Directive 91/250/EEC
         of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programmes (OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42), which provides in its 17th recital that
         ‘the exclusive rights of the author to prevent the unauthorised reproduction of his work have to be subject to a limited exception
         in the case of a computer program to allow the reproduction technically necessary for the use of that program by the lawful
         acquirer’.
      
      17 –	See, for example, Case C‑306/05 SGAE [2006] ECR I‑11519, paragraph 31; Case C‑357/98 Yiadom [2000] ECR I‑9265, paragraph 26; and Case C‑245/00 SENA [2003] ECR I‑1251, paragraph 23.
      
      18 –	See, in the legal literature, for example, Vivant, M., op. cit. (footnote 14), p. 98, who defines reproduction as ‘fixation’
         of the work in a medium. Kritharas, T., ‘The Challenge of Copyright in Information Society. Copyright on the Internet: Current
         Legal Aspects’, Revue hellénique de droit international, No 1/2003, p. 22 (with references to United Kingdom case-law) descibes the reproduction right in graphic terms: ‘What is
         worth copying is, prima facie, worth protecting [by copyright]’.
      
      19 –	The objective of a high level of protection is apparent in particular from recital 9 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29,
         which provides that ‘[a]ny harmonisation of copyright and related rights must take as a basis a high level of protection,
         since such rights are crucial to intellectual creation’; this objective also follows indirectly from recitals 4 and 10. Recital
         4 provides that ‘[a] harmonised legal framework on copyright and related rights, through increased legal certainty and while
         providing for a high level of protection of intellectual property, will foster substantial investment in creativity and innovation’;
         recital 10 in the preamble to the Directive provides that authors must ‘receive an appropriate reward for the use of their
         work’ and that ‘[a]dequate legal protection of intellectual property rights is necessary in order to guarantee the availability
         of such a reward’. The requirement of a high level of protection which allows them to receive an appropriate reward for the
         use of their work is confirmed by the case-law: see in that respect SGAE, op. cit. (footnote 17), paragraph 36.
      
      20 –	The reproduction in part of an image can also be given as an example. If the image represents a figure on a white background,
         it cannot be determined on the basis of the photograph (that is, the reproduction), part of which is a white background, which
         image it is. If however there is in the photograph a part of a figure and it is clear that it is an exact reproduction of
         that image, there is reproduction in part. I will also give a more extreme example: if in the extracts from newspaper articles
         produced by Infopaq there was only one word, for example ‘and’ or only the name of a given company, it would not be possible
         to state which newspaper article that extract came from and in that case there would not be reproduction in part.
      
      21 –	I note as a comparison, concerning problems in determining the length of quotations, that in the context of commentaries
         on Article 10(1) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (of 9 September 1886, completed
         at Paris on 4 May 1896, amended at Berlin on 13 November 1908, completed at Berne on 20 March 1914, amended at Rome on 2 June
         1928, at Brussels on 26 June 1948, at Stockholm on 14 July 1967, at Paris on 24 July 1971, and amended on 28 September 1979),
         which authorises quotations, the question of an upper permissible limit in respect of quotations was excluded and it has been
         stated that it would be difficult to apply a quantitative limitation on length. See for example Ricketson, S., Ginsburg, J.C.,
         International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights. The Berne Convention and Beyond, Vol. I, Oxford University Press, New York 2005, p. 788, section 13.42; Ricketson, S., The Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works: 1886-1986, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary College; Kluwer, London 1987, p. 493, section 9.23.
      
      22 –	For poems and well-known quotations, a few words suffice to constitute reproduction. Thus for example the quotation ‘Et
         tu, Brute?’ contains only three words, but there can be no doubt that this is a reproduction in part of the words of the play
         ‘Julius Caesar’ by William Shakespeare. If on the contrary as an example three words are taken from an extract from a newspaper
         article mentioned by the national court (see point 15 of this Opinion) – ‘sale of a telecommunications group’ – it is very
         difficult to state with certainty that it is a specific reproduction in part from a given newspaper article.
      
      23 –	See point 14 of this Opinion.
      
      24 –	See point 25 of this Opinion.
      
      25 –	Explanatory memorandum to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the harmonisation of copyright
         and certain related rights in the information society, COM(97) 628 final, p. 29, paragraph 3.
      
      26 –	Examples of acts of reproduction which must be excluded under Article 5(1) are also cited in the report from the Commission
         to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on
         the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, SEC(2007) 1556, p. 3: reproductions
         on internet routers, reproductions created during browsing, in RAM (Random Access Memory) memory or in cache memory.
      
      27 –	See, to that effect, for example Lehmann, M., op. cit (footnote 13), pp. 523–524.
      
      28 –	Hugenholtz, P.B., ‘Caching and Copyright: The Right of Temporary Copying’, European Intellectual Property Review, No 10/2000, p. 482 – he defines ‘caching’ as the ‘automatic creation of temporary digital copies of data ... in order to
         make the data more readily available for subsequent use’.
      
      29 –	Kritharas, T., op. cit. (footnote 18), p. 34, states that Directive 2001/29, by virtue of Article 5(1), excludes the creation
         of ‘cache’ copies from the reproduction right. See, for example, Hugenholtz, P. B., op. cit. (footnote 28), p. 482 et seq.,
         who, from the point of view of the protection of copyright, analyses different types of prememorisation (caching).
      
      30 –	This point is also confirmed by the explanatory memorandum to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive
         on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, COM(97) 628 final, p. 29,
         paragraph 3, from which it is apparent that the exception in Article 5(1) concerns the Internet as well as acts of reproduction
         not taking place on the Internet. Thus, for example, Plaza Penadés, J., ‘Propiedad intelectual y sociedad de la información
         (la Directiva comunitaria 2001/29/CE)’, in de Paula Blasco Gascó, F. (ed.), Contratación y nuevas tecnologías, Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Madrid 2005, p. 147.
      
      31 –	RAM memory (Random Access Memory) functions in such a way that the data are temporarily stored there to enable the functioning
         of the computer; when the user switches off the computer the data stored in the RAM are deleted. See, to that effect, Kritharas,
         T., op. cit. (footnote 18), p. 22; Westkamp, G., ‘Transient Copying and Public Communications: The Creeping Evolution of Use
         and Access Rights in European Copyright Law’, George Washington International Law Review, No 5/2004, p. 1057, note 2.
      
      32 –	See point 101 et seq. of this Opinion.
      
      33 –	This information is given by the national court in paragraph 2 of the order for reference describing the process for the
         production of extracts from newspaper articles.
      
      34 –	See the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation
         of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, Institute for Information Law, University
         of Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2007, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosoc-study_en.pdf,
         p. 23, which considers lasting reproduction to mean a ‘tangible permanent copy’ , and temporary reproduction to mean a ‘non-visible
         temporary copy’.
      
      35 –	See point 101 et seq. of this Opinion.
      
      36 –	The national court uses the term ‘temporary act of reproduction’; as in point 71 of this Opinion I have already pointed
         out that it is not clear whether the storing of an extract consisting of 11 words is a temporary act of reproduction, in considering
         the questions referred I will use the expression ‘act of reproduction’.
      
      37 –	To this effect see also the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC
         on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, op. cit. (footnote 34),
         p. 32, which states that the term ‘transient’ in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 concerns a ‘very short lifetime’.
      
      38 –	This is also clear from the usual meanings of ‘transient’ and ‘temporary’ in various languages. In English the term ‘temporary’
         means ‘lasting for only a limited period of time’ while the term ‘transient’ means ‘quickly passing away’; see the Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005. Similarly in German the term ‘vorübergehend’ (temporary) is defined as
         of a ‘certain period of time; temporary’, while ‘flüchtig’ (transient) is (at point 3 of the definition of ‘transient’) defined
         as ‘quickly passing away, which does not last long’; see Duden – Deutsches Universalwörterbuch, 6th edition, Mannheim 2006. In French the term ‘provisoire’ (temporary) means ‘only lasting for a limited time, while waiting
         for something definitive’, while ‘transitoire’ (transient) means ‘which does not last’; see Nouveau Larousse Encyclopédique, Vol. 2, Larousse, Paris 2003. In Italian the term ‘temporaneo’ (temporary) means ‘which lasts for a limited period of time’,
         while ‘transitorio’ (transient) means ‘which lasts briefly’; see Dizionario Italiano Sabatini Coletti, Giunti, Florence 1997. It is however the case that there are nuances which must ultimately be drawn from the context to
         arrive at the meaning in individual cases.
      
      39 –	See the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation
         of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, op. cit. (footnote 34), p. 32.
      
      40 –	Ibid.
      
      41 –	Legal commentators point out that it is not absolutely clear what that means. See for example Hart, M., ‘The Copyright
         in the Information Society Directive: An Overview’, European Intellectual Property Review, No 2/2002, p. 59. Mayer, H.-P., ‘Richtlinie 2001/29/EG zur Harmonisierung bestimmter Aspekte des Urheberrechts und der verwandten
         Schutzrechte in der Informationsgesellschaft’, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, No 11/2002, p. 327, who describes that condition as ‘problematic’.
      
      42 –	This dilemma in the interpretation of the condition that the temporary act of reproduction must be an integral and essential
         part of a technological process is raised for example in the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’
         laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’,
         op. cit. (footnote 34), p. 33. See also Spindler, G., ‘Europäisches Urheberrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft’, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, No 2/2002, p. 111.
      
      43 –	Such as Spindler, G., op. cit. (footnote 42), p. 111; and the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’
         laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’,
         op. cit. (footnote 34), p. 33.
      
      44 –	The explanatory memorandum to the proposal mentions ‘certain acts of reproduction which are dictated by technology’; Explanatory
         memorandum to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright
         and related rights in the information society, COM(97) 628 final, p. 29.
      
      45 –	This footnote only concerns the Slovenian version of this Opinion.
      
      46 –	Communication of the work to the public, making available to the public or distribution of the work.
      
      47 –	Concerning the fact that the condition of lawful use concerns lawful use on the basis of Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive
         2001/29, see, for example, Waelde, C., MacQueen, H., ‘The Scope of Copyright’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, No 3/2006, p. 63; see also the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC
         on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, op. cit. (footnote 34),
         p. 34, which states that the condition of lawful use of Article 5(1) concerns legal norms outside Article 5(1).
      
      48 –	See point 111 of this Opinion.
      
      49 –	It is stated, for example, in the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC
         on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, op. cit. (footnote 34),
         p. 34: the reproduction of a work in the RAM memory which occurs at the same time as the making of a private use copy in accordance
         with (a national implementation of) Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 may be exempted from the reproduction right since
         the use it enables – the making of a private use copy – is lawful.
      
      50 –	Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/29 provides for exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article
         2 of the Directive, while Article 5(3) provides for exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article
         2 and to the right of communication of works to the public and the right of making available to the public the subject-matter
         of related rights provided for in Article 3 of that Directive.
      
      51 –	Recital 32 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 provides that the ‘Directive provides for an exhaustive enumeration of
         exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right’.
      
      52 –	It should be added in connection with that article that it was included in Directive 2001/29 following the model of Article
         10bis of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, op. cit. (footnote 21). More precisely, the
         first exception provided for in Article 5(3)(c) was included in Directive 2001/29 following the model of Article 10bis(1)
         of the Berne Convention, while the second exception provided for in Article 5(3)(c) was included in Directive 2001/29 following
         the model of Article 10bis(2) of the Berne Convention.
      
      53 –	The other exceptions cannot be relevant in the present case. I note in particular, in connection with the exception provided
         for in Article 5(3)(d), which authorises ‘quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to
         a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to
         be impossible, the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice,
         and to the extent required by the specific purpose’, that in the present case the extracts from newspaper articles could certainly
         have characteristics of quotations, but not quotations for purposes such as criticism or review. Those quotations are not
         in fact used for criticisms or reviews of the newspaper articles in question but are on the contrary used for the production
         of summaries of the newspaper articles.
      
      54 –	See, for example, Berger, C., ‘Elektronische Pressespiegel und Informationsrichtlinie. Zur Vereinbarkeit einer Anpassung
         des § 49 UrhG an die Pressespiegel-Entscheidung des BGH mit der Informationsrichtlinie’, Computer und Recht, No 5/2004, p. 363; Glas, V., Die urheberrechtliche Zulässigkeit elektronischer Pressespiegel. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Harmonisierung der Schranken des
            Urheberrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten der EU, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2008, p. 131. It is also apparent from legal commentary on the interpretation of Article 10bis(1)
         of the Berne Convention on the model of which the first exception provided for in Article 5(3) was included in Directive 2001/29,
         that newspapers and magazines generally fall within that exception: see for example Ricketson, S., op. cit. (footnote 21),
         p. 501, section 9.30, and p. 503, section 9.32. Legal commentators also state that Article 10bis(1) of the Berne Convention
         does not in principle prevent extension to online editions of newspapers and magazines: see on that subject Ricketson, S.,
         Ginsburg, J.C., op. cit. (footnote 21), p. 801, paragraph 4.
      
      55 –	The right of communication of works to the public and the right of making works available to the public are provided for
         in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, which provides that ‘Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to
         authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available
         to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually
         chosen by them’.
      
      56 –	Directive 2001/29 describes communication to the public in recital 23 in the preamble, from which it is apparent that it
         covers ‘all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates’ and includes ‘any such
         transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless means, including broadcastings’. This would include
         for example public performance, broadcasting, and transmission via cable or satellite of works.
      
      57 –	Making available to the public is described in the recital 24 in the preamble to the Directive, from which it is apparent
         that this covers ‘all acts of making available ... to members of the public not present at the place where the act of making
         available originates’. It is apparent from legal commentary concerning the WIPO Treaties (WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances
         and Phonograms Treaty), which are transposed into Community law by Directive 2001/29, that making available to the public
         means making available to the public via information systems thanks to which a given work may be obtained; see Ficsor, M.,
         The Law of Copyright and the Internet. The 1996 WIPO Treaties, their Interpretation and Implementation, Oxford University Press, New York 2002, p. 183, section 4.56. See also Reinbothe, J., von Lewinski, S., The WIPO Treaties 1996.The WIPO Copyright Treaty and The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Commentary and Legal Analysis, Butterworths, London 2002, p. 109, paragraph 20.
      
      58 –	Sending by email is definitely not transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless means, including
         broadcasting.
      
      59 –	Sending individual customers extracts from newspaper articles by email cannot in my opinion be considered as making available
         to the public. As is apparent from Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29, the condition for the existence of making available
         to the public is that members of the public have access at a place and time chosen by them. That condition is however not
         fulfilled in the case of sending by email because this is specific correspondence with given clients in the context of which
         those clients do not themselves have access to the reproductions in part of newspaper articles, nor do they chose the time
         at which they have access to them. Legal commentators also state that transmission of a work by email does not fall under
         making available to the public. See, for example, von Lewinski, S., ‘Die Multimedia-Richtlinie – Der EG-Richtlinienvorschlag
         zum Urheberrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft’, MultiMedia und Recht, No 3/1998, p. 116; Spindler, G., op. cit. (footnote 42), p. 108.
      
      60 –	Glas, V., op. cit. (footnote 54), p. 144. Such an interpretation is also confirmed by Article 10bis(2) of the Berne Convention,
         on the model of which this exception was included in Directive 2001/29 and which provides: ‘It shall also be a matter for
         legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which, for the purpose of reporting current events
         by means of photography, cinematography, broadcasting or communication to the public by wire, literary or artistic works seen
         or heard in the course of the event may, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose, be reproduced and made available to the public’ (emphasis added).
         See Ricketson, S., Ginsburg, J.C., op. cit. (footnote 21), p. 802 (section 13.54), p. 805 (section 13.55).
      
      61 –	Legal commentators state that this condition is not found either in international treaties or in national copyright law.
         See, to that effect, Westkamp, G., op. cit. (footnote 31), p. 1101. See also the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect
         in Member States’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in
         the information society’, op. cit. (footnote 34), p. 35.
      
      62 –	Explanatory memorandum to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the harmonisation of certain
         aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, COM(97) 628 final, p. 37.
      
      63 –	What is essential here is whether the act of reproduction has independent economic significance for the person who carries
         out the act of reproduction or for the copyright holder.
      
      64 –	See the study ‘Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation
         of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, op. cit. (footnote 34), p. 35, which also
         argues in this manner and states that – if Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 is to have real meaning – independent economic
         significance cannot be interpreted solely in terms of the interests of rightholders.
      
      65 –	Prim. Corbet, J., ‘De ontwerp-richtlijn van 10 december 1997 over het auteursrecht en de naburige rechten in de Informatiemaatscjhappij’,
         Informatierecht/AMI, No 5/1998, p. 96, who considers that caching has economic significance because it increases the speed of transmission of
         data, for which reason services which involve transmission of data are more attractive to customers. However, Corbet refers
         only to economic significance and not independent economic significance. See also Hugenholtz, P.B., Koelman, K., Digital Intellectual Property Practice Economic Report, Institute for Information Law (IViR), p. 24, footnote 36, report available at: www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/PBH-DIPPER.doc.
      
      66 –	Legal commentators also state that reproduction which constitutes an actual economic activity in its own right would have
         independent economic significance. See to that effect Hugenholtz, P.B., op. cit. (footnote 28), p. 488; Westkamp, G., op. cit.
         (footnote 31), p. 1098; Hugenholtz, P.B., Koelman, K., op. cit. (footnote 65) p. 24.
      
      67 –	This reasoning applies to the storing of newspaper articles if the national court finds that a temporary act of reproduction
         is involved; if not, the storing of extracts cannot be justified on the basis of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      68 –	See the reasoning of Westkamp, G., op. cit. (footnote 31), p. 1101, who states that it is always necessary to assess the
         economic significance of temporary acts of reproduction in relation to the most lasting final act of reproduction.
      
      69 –	As regards storing of extracts from newspaper articles, this analysis applies if the national court finds that this is
         a temporary act of reproduction; if not, the storing of extracts cannot be justified on the basis of Article 5(1) of Directive
         2001/29.
      
      70 –	I would like to clarify in connection with Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 that that provision lays down additional conditions
         for the application of the exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right, to the right of communication to the public,
         to the right of making available to the public and to the right of distribution of the work or subject-matter of related rights.
         As is apparent from its wording, Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 concerns the ‘exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs
         1, 2, 3 and 4’; those paragraphs govern the exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right (paragraphs 2 and 3), to
         the right of communication to the public and of making available to the public (paragraph 3) and to the distribution right
         (paragraph 4).
      
      71 –	See, for example, Hart, M., op. cit. (footnote 41), p. 61; Kritharas, T., op. cit. (footnote 18), p. 30; Lehmann, M., op.
         cit. (footnote 13), p. 526.
      
      72 –	Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, op. cit. (footnote 21). The Community is not a party
         to the Berne Convention, but it modelled certain provisions of Directive 2001/29 on that convention. See the list of parties
         to the Berne Convention at: www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?country_id=ALL&start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&treaty_id=15.
      
      73 –	The European Community is a party to the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty; see the list of parties at: www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?country_id=ALL&start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&treaty_id=16.
      
      74 –	Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The Community is a contracting party to the TRIPS Agreement;
         the power to conclude that treaty is shared between the Community and the Member States; see the Opinion of the Court of Justice
         of 15 November 1994 (Opinion 1/94 [1994] ECR I‑5267, point 3).
      
      75 –	Recital 44 provides moreover that the exceptions and limitations ‘may not be applied in a way which prejudices the legitimate
         interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with the normal exploitation of his work or other subject-matter’. That recital
         therefore refers explicitly to two of the conditions laid down by Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29.
      
      76 –	Such a particular objective could, for example, be the reproduction of a work for educational purposes, for the benefit
         of invalids or for public security. See, concerning the particular exceptions in those areas, Article 5(3)(a), (b) and (e)
         of Directive 2001/29. See Ricketson, S., Ginsburg, J.C., op. cit. (footnote 21), p. 764, section 13.12; Reinbothe, J., von
         Lewinski, S., op. cit. (footnote 57), p. 124, paragraph 15.
      
      77 –	I note in that respect that the exception provided for in Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29 does not explicitly state
         that informing the public about current events cannot have a commercial purpose; in that respect, the exception provided for
         in Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29 differs for example from the exceptions provided for in paragraph (2)(b) and (c) of
         that Article, which expressly prohibits reproductions for private use, or which are made by publicly accessible libraries
         or establishments, with a commercial purpose.
      
      78 –	See to that effect Ficsor, M., op. cit. (footnote 57), p. 516, section C10.03.
      
      79 –	Reinbothe, J., von Lewinski, S., op. cit. (footnote 57), p. 125, paragraph 18, state that in the context of this condition
         the relevant market for exploitation of the work which a given exception could affect must be defined. In that context he
         puts forward the example (paragraph 19) that the sale of photocopied textbooks would affect the market for school books and
         could not therefore be justified on the basis of the exception which authorises reproduction for educational purposes.
      
      80 –	It is appropriate to undertake this analysis irrespective of the fact that – as stated by the national court and the two
         parties to the main proceedings – the drawing up of summaries is permissible under Danish law. I note as an example that reading
         photocopied books is not prohibited, but that does not justify photocopying of a book without restriction.
      
      81 –	Ficsor, M., op. cit. (footnote 57), p. 516, section C10.03.
      
      82 –	Reinbothe, J., von Lewinski, S., op. cit. (footnote 57), pp. 126-127, paragraph 22.
      
      83 –	This analysis applies to the storing of extracts from newspaper articles if the national court finds that this is a temporary
         act of reproduction; if not the storing of extracts cannot be justified on the basis of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.