Source: http://www.husovec.eu/2011/10/copyright-subject-matter-court-of.html
Timestamp: 2020-06-07 09:05:25
Document Index: 465192008

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', '§ 9']

Hutko´s Tech Law Notes: Copyright Subject Matter & Court of Justice of European Union
Copyright Subject Matter & Court of Justice of European Union
I keep wondering how many 'subject matter cases' have pop up in the last few months, despite the fact that European law does not generally address the issue of copyright subject matter. The only exceptions are
computer programs [Art. 1(3) and Recital 8 of Directive 2009/24/EC (previously 91/250/EEC)];
"A computer program shall be protected if it is an original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation. No other criteria shall be applied to determine its eligibility for protection. [Art. 1]"
"For the purpose of this Directive, the term "computer program" shall include programs in any form, including those which are incorporated into hardware. This term also includes preparatory design work leading to the development of a computer program provided that the nature of the preparatory work is such that a computer program can result from it at a later stage. In respect of the criteria to be applied in determining whether or not a computer program is an original work, no tests as to the qualitative or aesthetic merits of the program should be applied. [Recitals 7-8]"
photographs [Art. 6 and Recital 16 of Directive 2006/116/EC (previosuly 93/98/EEC)];
"Photographs which are original in the sense that they are the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected in accordance with Art. 1 [of 2006/116/EC]. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection. [Art. 6]"
"A photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account. [Recital 16]"
databases [Art. 3 of Directive 96/9/EC]
"In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by copyright. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for that protection. [Art. 3(1)] "
Now lets have a look at the list of known Court of Justice cases addressing copyright subject matter issue whether decided or pending.
Infopaq I. C-5/08 - general
BSA C-393/09 - general
Football Association Premier League C-403/08 - general
Painer C-145/10 - photographs (pending - AG opinion so far)
Football Dataco C-604/10 - databases (pending)
Three cases concern general copyright protection requirements despite the fact that this is not subject to European law. Good commentary is provided for instance by prof. Griffiths in his article "Infopaq, BSA and the 'Europeanisation' of United Kingdom Copyright Law". Let's have a look what these cases say.
It all started with Infopaq I. C-5/08
Then continued with BSA C-393/09
And now Football Association Premier League C-403/08 says
Does it really mean that under new European doctrine 'author’s own intellectual creation' is the only thing that matters in order to pass the copyright treshold? These three cases seems to say yes. Just to illustrate, Slovak Copyright Law generally requires (Section 7):
a) authors own intellectual creation;
b) creativity (not explicitly);
c) work of art or science;
d) work to be expressed in a objectively perceivable form;
e) not excluded from copyright protection;
Interestingly, under Slovak Copyright Law there is no difference made between creativity threshold for photographs, computer programs or other works of art or science in the wording of the Copyright Act, which is probably wrong due to different treatment on the European level. Of course, provisions shall be interpreted in the light of European law, which may make the whole difference. Consider for instance that computer programs shall be tested without any qualitative or aesthetic merits of the program or European autonomous copyright test for photographs introduced in these lines of Advocate General in pending Painer C-145/10 case.
Footnotes of the General Advocate
48 – Under Article 6(3) of Directive 93/98 and Directive 2006/116, Member States may protect photographs to a greater extent than the requirements of Union law.
49 – This is clear from 17th recital in the preamble to Directive 93/98.
50 – See Case C‑5/08 Infopaq International, cited in footnote 47, paragraph 35, where the Court made reference to the requirements under Article 6 of Directive 2006/116.
51 – See Nordemann, A., in Loewenheim, U., Handbuch der Urheberrechts, 2nd edition 2010, Beck, § 9, paragraph 149. Leistner, M., Copyright Law in the EC: Status quo, recent case law and policy perspectives, Common Market Law Review 2009, p. 847 et seq., 849 et seq., points out that in Member States in which a higher test applied, Article 6 of Directive 93/98 and of Directive 2006/116 has led to a lowering of that test in order to comply with the requirements of the directive. For the purposes of the present case, a more comprehensive comparison with, on the one hand, the criterion of ‘sweat of the brow’, which is familiar from common law and from the legal orders of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and, on the other, the criterion of ‘originalité’ and ‘Schöpfungshöhe’, which is familiar from continental legal orders, is therefore irrelevant.
52 – The notion of reproduction in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 is a combination of the notions of reproduction in the preceding directives. See Reinbothe, J., Die EG-Richtlinie zum Urheberrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht – Internationaler Teil 2001, p. 733 et seq., 736 and Lewinsky, S., Der EG-Richtlinienvorschlag zum Urheberrecht und zu verwandten Schutzrechten in der Informationsgesellschaft, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht – Internationaler Teil 1998, p. 637 and 638.
Wondering where this will end up .. Any comments are welcome.
Posted by Huťko at 11:06 AM