Unsticking the centre-piece – the liberation of European copyright law?

Following European legislative initiatives in the field of copyright limitations and exceptions, policy flexibilities formerly available to mem- ber states has been greatly diminished. The law in this area is increasingly incapable of accommodating any expansion in the scope of freely permitted acts, even where such expansion may be an appropriate response to changes in social and technological conditions. In this article, the causes of this problem are briefly canvassed and a number of potential solutions are noted. It is suggested that one such solution – the adoption of an open, factor-based model similar to s 107 of the United States’ Copyright Act – has not received the serious attention it deserves. The fair use paradigm has generally been dismissed as excessively unpredictable, contrary to international law and/or culturally alien. Drawing on recent fair use scholarship, it is argued here that these disadvantages are over-stated and that the potential for the development of a European fair use model merits investigation.

Spanish Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Google Search Engine... and a Flexible Reading of Copyright Statutes?

On 3 April 2012, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a major ruling in favour of the Google search engine, including its ‘cache copy’ service: Sentencia n.172/2012, of 3 April 2012, Supreme Court, Civil Chamber.* The importance of this ruling lies not so much in the circumstances of the case (the Supreme Court was clearly disgusted by the claimant’s ‘maximalist’ petitum to shut down the whole operation of the search engine), but rather on the court going beyond the text of the Copyright Act into the general principles of the law and case law, and especially on the reading of the three-step test (in Art. 40bis TRLPI) in a positive sense so as to include all these principles. After accepting that none of the limitations listed in the Spanish Copyright statute (TRLPI) exempted the unauthorized use of fragments of the contents of a personal website through the Google search engine and cache copy service, the Supreme Court concluded against infringement, based on the grounds that the three-step test (in Art. 40bis TRLPI) is to be read not only in a negative manner but also in a positive sense so as to take into account that intellectual property – as any other kind of property – is limited in nature and must endure any ius usus inocui (harmless uses by third parties) and must abide to the general principles of the law, such as good faith and prohibition of an abusive exercise of rights (Art. 7 Spanish Civil Code).The ruling is a major success in favour of a flexible interpretation and application of the copyright statutes, especially in the scenarios raised by new technologies and market agents, and in favour of using the three-step test as a key tool to allow for it.

The Digital Economy Act in the dock: a proportionate ruling

The UK’s Digital Economy Act 2010 contains measures to enforce copyright on the Internet, specifically a two-tiered form of a graduated response.The Act was challenged in the High Court by two of the UK’s biggest Internet Service Providers (ISP), who obtained a Judicial Review of the copyright enforce- ment provisions. This paper is an overview of the case, based on the hearing of March 2011 and the ensuing judgement. It focuses on the two most hotly contested grounds for the challenge, namely an al- leged failure to notify the European Commission under the Technical Standards Directive, and the pro- portionality or otherwise of the contested provisions. It observes how the judgement accepted the defence argumentation of the government and the copyright owners as interested parties, and how the ISPs appeared to be put on the back foot.

A manifesto for an e-lending limitation in copyright

In the European Union, lending is an exclusive right for copyright and related rights, but Member States can transform public lending to a right of remuneration and even exempt some establishments from any payment. The making available of works online is not covered by the public lending right regime of the Rental and Lending Directive but is considered as an act of making available governed by the InfoSoc Directive. As a consequence, libraries are currently not allowed to digitally transmit works to their patrons as lending, but have entered into licenses with publishers to develop an offer of lending of e-books, also called e-lending, with the intermediation of dedicated platforms operated by commercial actors. Compared to physical lending, e-lending is not based on ownership of the book by libraries but on its provision by this intermediary. This paper discusses how the objective of enabling libraries to engage in e-lending should be achieved, and what is the proper dividing line between a market-based solution, as developing today, and a limitation to exclusive rights. The impact of an extension of the public lending right to e-lending should be assessed, but not based on a criterion of direct substitution of a book on loan at the library to a book bought at a retailer. By definition, libraries are substitutes to normal trade. Instead, the overall effect of lending to the commercialisation of books and other works should be verified. Particular conditions for a limitation in favour of lending are also addressed, and notably the modalities of lending (a limited duration, one simultaneous user per title, …), not to make e-lending through libraries easier and preferable to the normal acquisition of an e-book. This paper argues in favour of some and controlled extension of the public lending right to cover the lending of e-books and other digital content. For the role of libraries is essential in providing access to works and culture to readers who would or could not rely only on normal acquisition of books or other items on the market, to works that are not provided by the market, and to material for research. Libraries are a third sector providing access to works, aside the market and non-market exchanges between individuals. This role should not lose its relevance in the digital context, or it would culturally impoverish future generations of readers.

Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC

The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and related rights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State level as express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information Society Directive did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.

Limitations: The Centerpiece of Copyright in Distress

After the exclusive rights in copyright have been consolidated in a century-long historical development, limitations and exceptions have become the main instrument to determine the exact scope of copyright. Limitations and exceptions do not merely fine-tune copyright protection. Rather, they balance the interests of authors, rightholders, competitors and end-users in a quadrupolar copyright system. Understanding this is of particular importance in the digital and networked information society, where copyrighted information is not only created and consumed, but constantly extracted, regrouped, repackaged, recombined, abstracted and interpreted. However, serious doubts exist whether the present, historically grown system of limitations adequately balances the interests involved in the information society. Both the closed list of limitations allowed under Art. 5 of the EU Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC and a narrowly interpreted three-step test contained in Arts. 13 TRIPS and 5 (5) of the Information Society Directive appear as obstacles in the way of achieving the appropriate balance needed. This brief article outlines the issues involved which were discussed at the International Conference on “Commons, Users, Service Providers – Internet (Self-) Regulation and Copyright” which took place in Hannover, Germany, on 17/18 March 2010 on the occasion of the launch of JIPITEC.

The EU’s Trouble with Mashups: From Disabling to Enabling a Digital Art Form

New tools for editing of digital images, music and films have opened up new possibilities to enable wider circles of society to engage in ’artistic’ activities of different qualities. User-generated content has produced a plethora of new forms of artistic expression. One type of user-generated content is the mashup. Mashups are compositions that combine existing works (often) protected by copyright and transform them into new original creations. The European legislative framework has not yet reacted to the copyright problems provoked by mashups. Neither under the US fair use doctrine, nor under the strict corset of limitations and exceptions in Art 5 (2)-(3) of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) have mashups found room to develop in a safe legal environment. The contribution analyzes the current European legal framework and identifies its insufficiencies with regard to enabling a legal mashup culture. By comparison with the US fair use approach, in particular the parody defense, a recent CJEU judgment serves as a comparative example. Finally, an attempt is made to suggest solutions for the European legislator, based on the policy proposals of the EU Commission’s “Digital Agenda” and more recent policy documents (e.g. “On Content in the Digital Market”, “Licenses for Europe”). In this context, a distinction is made between non-commercial mashup artists and the emerging commercial mashup scene.

Digital First Sale Doctrine Ante Portas – Exhaustion in the Online Environment

The purpose of the article is to provide first a doctrinal summary of the concept, rules and policy of exhaustion, first, on the international and EU level, and, later, under the law of the United States. Based upon this introduction, the paper turns to the analysis of the doctrine by the pioneer court decisions handed over in the UsedSoft, ReDigi, the German e-book/audio book cases, and the pending Tom Kabinet case from the Netherlands. Questions related to the licence versus sale dichotomy; the so-called umbrella solution; the “new copy theory”, migration of digital copies via the internet; the forward-and-delete technology; the issue of lex specialis and the theory of functional equivalence are covered later on. The author of the present article stresses that the answers given by the respective judges of the referred cases are not the final stop in the discussion. The UsedSoft preliminary ruling and the subsequent German domestic decisions highlight a special treatment for computer programs. On the other hand, the refusal of digital exhaustion in the ReDigi and the audio book/e-book cases might be in accordance with the present wording of copyright law; however, they do not necessarily reflect the proper trends of our ages. The paper takes the position that the need for digital exhaustion is constantly growing in society and amongst businesses. Indeed, there are reasonable arguments in favour of equalizing the resale of works sold in tangible and intangible format. Consequently, the paper urges the reconsideration of the norms on exhaustion on the international and EU level.