Source: https://acelg.blogactiv.eu/2013/07/15/on-copyright-levies-printers-plotters-and-personal-computers-vg-wort-v-kyocera-and-others/
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 23:26:25
Document Index: 330786315

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 2', 'art. 5', 'art. 6', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5']

On copyright levies, printers, plotters and personal computers (VG Wort v Kyocera and others) | ACELG
VG Wort v Kyocera is the most recent chapter in the Court of Justice’s effort to make sense of the Copyright Directive’s provisions on the private copying exception and the levies applicable for unauthorized acts of reproduction by end-users. In a context where over EUR 600 million of levies are collect in the EU every year and the Commission has failed on repeated promises to propose legislation, the Court provided interpretation on key controversial issues. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in the copyright field, the end result of this judgement may have done more harm than good, especially from a consumer perspective.
By João Pedro Quintais
On June 27, 2013, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered its judgement in Joined Cases C‑457/11 to C‑460/11, VG Wort v Kyocera and others (VG Wort v Kyocera; see also the Press Release). This judgement was preceded by an Opinion by A.G. Sharpston (delivered on January 24, 2013) and comes in a particularly busy period for private copying and reprography levies, which has seen not only the publication of a set of Recommendations by Mediator António Vitorino, but also a bevy of requests for preliminary references by the CJEU: Constantin Filmverleih v UPC Telekabel, Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia and ACI Adam and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie. The Commission has made clear that reform in this field is necessary from the single market perspective, with Internal Market Commissioner Barnier presenting the Vitorino Recommendations as “non-binding provisions”. However, despite the Recommendations having been discussed in the latest “competitiveness” meeting of the Council of the EU , there is no indication of legislative action in this field for 2013, as previously promised for 2012 in the IPR Strategy (of 2011). VG Wort v Kyocera deals with the interpretation of several provisions in the Copyright Directive (all legal provisions cited hereinafter refer to this legal instrument, unless otherwise stated). It looks in particular at the right of reproduction (art. 2) and its articulation with the exceptions and limitations in art. 5 – namely concerning private copying, reprographic reproductions and the concept of fair compensation – as well as with the provisions on technical protection measures (TPMs) in art. 6. The judgement also deals with a question on the temporal applicability of the Directive (arts. 10 and 13(1)).
This judgement results from references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) made in the context of proceedings between a German collecting society (VG Wort) and several intermediary suppliers (Kyocera, Epson, Xerox, Fujitsu and Hewlett Packard) concerning the compensation to be paid to the first by the latter as a consequence of the placement on the market of devices capable of copying (e.g. printers, plotters and personal computers).
VG Wort is the sole representative of authors and publishers of literary works in Germany for the purposes of collecting this compensation from device suppliers, having acted in the disputes giving rise to this judgement on behalf of VG Bild-Kunst, a different collecting society representing rights holders in graphic works. In essence, the disputes in the underlying cases relate to both collecting societies’ intent to have the aforementioned intermediary suppliers pay levies on computers, printers and or plotters marketed in Germany. The suppliers, for their part, argued that some of the devices in question (namely printers and plotters) are incapable of autonomous copying, being able to do so only when linked to a device which uses a photographic technique or process for that effect; as such, only the latter device should be levied.
The effect of explicit or implicit authorization in the right to fair compensation The Court then addresses the question of the effect of explicit or implicit authorization in the right to fair compensation. As a preliminary point, readers should recall that, where Member States chose to implement the optional exceptions or limitations in arts. 5(2)-5(4), certain provisions are conditional upon the grant of fair compensation – art. 5(2) (a), (b) and (e) – while others do not come with such condition, being however possible that national law provides for such compensation (cf. recital 36).
The effect of TPM application in the condition of fair compensation According to art. 5(2)(b) (on private copying), fair compensation must take account of the application or non-application of TPMs to the copied works.
The scope of the concept of reprographic reproductions This question is aimed at discerning whether the concept of reprographic reproductions (art. 5(2)(a)) encompasses acts “effected using a printer or a personal computer, essentially where the two are linked together, and, in such a case, which person must be considered as owing the fair compensation under that provision”. The Court notes first that art. 5(2)(a) applies to acts of reproduction using a particular medium – a material element consisting of paper or similar – thus excluding all non-analogue mediums, especially those of a digital kind. Second, it covers different means of reproduction: photographic of other processes having similar effect. The crux of the provision is in the medium comprising the result of the reproduction act, meaning that it allows for a plethora of operations leading to such act, on condition that these are non-autonomous and integrated in a single process, under the control of the same person and aimed at reproducing the work in an analogue medium. Under this configuration, the Court considers that art. 5(2)(a) can encompass reproduction processes including multiple devices, even if with a digital function (thus allowing methods comprising an intermediate digital stage).
João Pedro Quintais is PhD Researcher at University of Amsterdam, Institute for Information Law. His personal page can be accessed here.
004	Author : acelg Print