Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Comperterprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht

This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007.

Software als Schutzgegenstand des Europäischen Urheberrechts

After 20 years of silence, two recent references from the Czech Republic (Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, Case C-393/09) and from the English High Court (SAS Institute, Case C-406/10) touch upon several questions that are fundamental for the extent of copyright protection for software under the Computer Program Directive 91/25 (now 2009/24) and the Information Society Directive 2001/29. In Case C-393/09, the European Court of Justice held that “the object of the protection conferred by that directive is the expression in any form of a computer program which permits reproduction in different computer languages, such as the source code and the object code.” As “any form of expression of a computer program must be protected from the moment when its reproduction would engender the reproduction of the computer program itself, thus enabling the computer to perform its task,” a graphical user interface (GUI) is not protected under the Computer Program Directive, as it does “not enable the reproduction of that computer program, but merely constitutes one element of that program by means of which users make use of the features of that program.” While the definition of computer program and the exclusion of GUIs mirror earlier jurisprudence in the Member States and therefore do not come as a surprise, the main significance of Case C-393/09 lies in its interpretation of the Information Society Directive. In confirming that a GUI “can, as a work, be protected by copyright if it is its author’s own intellectual creation,” the ECJ continues the Europeanization of the definition of “work” which began in Infopaq (Case C-5/08). Moreover, the Court elaborated this concept further by excluding expressions from copyright protection which are dictated by their technical function. Even more importantly, the ECJ held that a television broadcasting of a GUI does not constitute a communication to the public, as the individuals cannot have access to the “essential element characterising the interface,” i.e., the interaction with the user. The exclusion of elements dictated by technical functions from copyright protection and the interpretation of the right of communication to the public with reference to the “essential element characterising” the work may be seen as welcome limitations of copyright protection in the interest of a free public domain which were not yet apparent in Infopaq. While Case C-393/09 has given a first definition of the computer program, the pending reference in Case C-406/10 is likely to clarify the scope of protection against nonliteral copying, namely in how far the protection extends beyond the text of the source code to the design of a computer program and where the limits of protection lie as regards the functionality of a program and mere “principles and ideas.” In light of the travaux préparatoires, it is submitted that the ECJ is also likely to grant protection for the design of a computer program, while excluding both the functionality and underlying principles and ideas from protection under the European copyright directives.

Sui Generis Rights for the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions Policy Implications

Within the international community there have been many calls for better protection of traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), for which classic instruments of intellectual property rights do not seem to fit. In response, at least five model laws have been advanced within the last 40 years. These are referred to as sui generis because, though they generally belong to the realm of intellectual property they structurally depart from classic copyright law to accommodate the needs of the holders of TCEs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a well-founded basis for national policy makers who wish to implement protection for TCEs within their country. This is achieved by systematically comparing and evaluating economic effects that can be expected to result from these regulatory alternatives and a related system or private ordering. Specifically, we compare if and how protection preferences of local communities are met as well as the social costs that are likely to arise from the different model laws.

The Right to Be Forgotten More Than a Pandora’s Box?

Recently, political voices have stressed the need to introduce a right to be forgotten as new human right. Individuals should have the right to make potentially damaging information disappear after a certain time has elapsed. Such new right, however, can come in conflict with the principle of free speech. Therefore, its scope needs to be evaluated in the light of appropriate data protection rules. Insofar, a more user-centered approach is to be realized. “Delete” can not be a value as such, but must be balanced within a new legal framework.

Creative Commons licences and design Are the two compatible?

This article analyses whether Creative Commons licences are applicable to and compatible with design. The first part focuses on the peculiar and complex nature of a design, which can benefit from a copyright and a design protection. This shows how it can affect the use of Creative Commons licences. The second and third parts deal with a specific case study. Some Internet platforms have recently emerged that offer users the possibility to download blueprints of design products in order to build them. Designers and creative users are invited to share their blueprints and creations under Creative Commons licences. The second part of the article assesses whether digital blueprints can be copyrightable and serve as the subject matter of Creative Commons licences, while the last part assesses whether the right to reproduce the digital blueprint, as provided by Creative Commons licences, extends to the right to build the product.

Google face à la justice française et belge Nouvelles décisions en matière de droit d’auteur

Internet Service Providers’ liability for copyright infringement is a debated issue in France and Belgium, particularly with respect to intermediaries such as providers of hyperlinks and location tool services for which the e-commerce directive does not set explicitly any exemption from liability. Thus, the question arises among other things whether the safe harbour provisions provided for in respect of caching and hosting also could apply to search engines. French and Belgian Courts had recently to decide on this issue in several cases concerning Google’s complementary tools such as Google Videos, Google Images, Google Suggest and Google News. This article seeks to give a summary of and to assess this recent case law.

GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?

In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.

Stig Strömholm, Copyright and the Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Survey

Heymanns Verlag 2010, 88 p., ISBN 978-3-452-27300-0

Simon Chesterman, One Nation Under Surveillance – A New Social Contract to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty

Oxford University Press 2011, ISBN 978-0-19-958037-8

Till Kreutzer, Das Modell des deutschen Urheberrechts und Regelungsalternativen. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zu Werkbegriff, Zuordnung, Umfang und Dauer des Urheberrechts als Reaktion auf den urheberrechtlichen Funktionswandel

Nomos Verlag 2008, 528 p., ISBN 978-3-8329-3998-4

EU Commission: Comments on the “Opinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement”

The “Opinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA) of February 11, 2011, was published in 2 JIPITEC 65 (2011). Signed by more than 25 law professors and academics from across Europe who specialize in the field, this opinion addressed the following concern: Although it is uncontested that the infringement of intellectual property rights, especially in the Internet, prejudices the legitimate interests of right holders, it is still very controversial in Europe and abroad whether the enforcement standards of ACTA are balanced. The European Commission, DG Trade, has now published a document with detailed comments on the Opinion. The comments, which are also available on the website of the European Commission [http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/ html/147853.htm], are republished here with the kind permission of the European Commission.