CJEU: A Review & Critique of Its Case Law
Moderator: Trevor Cook, Bird & Bird LLP, London
Prof. Lionel Bently, University of Cambridge, Harmonization
by Stealth
A series of partially harmonizing directives agreed on
politically. ECJ has started to fill in
the gaps the legislature didn’t.
Originality; the work; ownership; designs.
Infopaq: a general originality standard exists for all
works; directive spoke only of databases, computer programs, and photos, but
the ECJ extrapolated from that to determine that a defendant’s use counted as a
part of a work. You had to know what the work was to figure that out, and
therefore had to evaluate originality.
ECJ went on to find that there was also harmonization of the concept of
the work. A football match isn’t a work
because it’s not an intellectual creation, and so on.
Designs: directive says: if a design right is registered in
a member state, it should be protected by copyright; but originality should be
determined by member states. ECJ says:
extent of protection doesn’t cover term, so it’s required to do life plus 70
for registered designs. Even unregistered designs: members must protect them as
original works if they comply with the Information Society Directive’s
requirements. That means distribution, reproduction, communication to the
public; exceptions to the design right must meet the exceptions tests.
ECJ evaluated Austrian provision requiring copyright to be
held by employer in the case of a producer of a film; ECJ said that was
incompatible with European law.
Rebuttable presumption of transfer was ok but not an irrebuttable
presumption. The alternative result
would be appropriation of author’s rights.
This is going much beyond what we thought we had. Should we welcome this development? It avoids political difficulties that prevent
legislative harmonization. Also, the
outcomes are pretty much unobjectionable and therefore easy to accept as
legitimate. Criticisms: process
legitimacy. As between the EU and member
states, these were areas thought to have been left to member states. Rules are inconsistent with national
legislation. Creates transitional
uncertainty: ownership of crown copyright, ownership of registered designs,
moral rights of employees (generally taken away by UK legislation). If unoriginal works can’t be protected by
copyright, can they be protected by unfair competition law? The UK has a closed list of works—does it
have to include any “intellectual creation”?
Etc.
Hon. Mr. Justice Peter Charleton, Justice, High Court of
Ireland, Dublin, Copyright as One of Several Competing Rights in European Law
Legal certainty is one of the foundations of European law,
in the same way we want instructions given to police to be certain so we all
know where we stand. Economic entities, when they know the law is clear and
precise, can plan accordingly. But that
principle of certainty is now missing.
Three main internet defenses: mere conduit; caching only;
Directive forbids monitoring. Some
people take the position—e.g., special rapporteur of UN General Assembly Human
Rights Council—that you can’t disconnect someone from the internet. Justice
Arnold: economic effect of piracy is big.
European Convention on Human Rights—right to privacy unless interference
is necessary; right to free expression unless essential for a democratic
society/national security/public safety/territorial integrity. Directive: where you are going to remove
rights, including here the right to communicate under internet, only imposed if
they’re appropriate and necessary, with due process. ISPs have rights to run a business; people
have rights to privacy in data. Right to
fair balance between IP rights and freedom to do business/receive data. Not clear what the balance will be.
Clear dichotomy between the European approach to damages and
the US approach. MPAA says the copyright
owner can’t determine how many people downloaded a work and so damages should
be huge. $80,000 against Jamie
Thomas-Rassett. Arista v. Limewire: more
money claimed in damages than the entire industry had made since the invention
of the phonograph. Reality of European
law: once you get into the realm of penalizing people in civil remedies, other
due process rights will arise. Must
titrate the remedy carefully.
Christopher M. Stothers, Arnold & Porter LLP, London, Free
Movement and Copyright: A Review of the Decoder Cases
Football association filmed football matches; licensed
broadcast rights territorially; games encoded and then sent by satellite. Contractual limitations: decoder cards only sold
on country by country basis. Cards were cheaper in some countries than others,
much cheaper in Greece than UK.
Inevitable arbitrage.
Questions: Were the territorial restrictions compatible with
EU law? Does showing a match in a pub constitute a communication to the public
of the underlying work?
Territorial restrictions on the use of IP to restrict free
movement of goods have been prohibited for a long time. However, the position
seemed to be different for services. ECJ
found territorial restrictions breached rules on free movement. Very broad
approach to freedom to provide.
More surprising: Communication originated at the football
ground, not the pub, and pub patrons were new public. English court on remand applied that rule but
found a UK-based exception for broadcast films. UK law thus incompatible with
EU law.
Other cases: films to hotel rooms: yes, communication to
public. Playing the radio during dental surgery, no. Pending case: simulcasting in the UK.
Conclusions: rulings on territorial restrictions were
unsurprising and necessary for a single market; consumer-focused construction
of freedom to provide services.
Communication to the public more surprising, limits impact
of territorial ruling to individual consumers because anyone using the tech for
commercial purposes is likely communicating to the public.
Dr. Silke von Lewinski, Max Planck Institute for
Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich
Examples of where there might be leeway for member states,
but not spelled out: who counts as a performer for neighboring rights? Perhaps member states should have harmonized,
but they didn’t want to. Perhaps they now need to tell the ECJ not to harmonize specific terms.
Ted Shapiro, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
Deputy Managing Director, EMEA, Motion Picture Association, Brussels
Right or wrong, the football decision is striking since it
wasn’t formally addressed by the law. Is
territoriality finished? He doesn’t
agree with many aspects of these judgments, but they have answered a bunch of
questions. Fundamental right to run a
business based on other people’s stuff. An
ISP can’t be directed to end piracy in our time (he seems to be sad the case
was framed that way). Would the result
be the same if it had been the Pirate Bay? He thinks filtering would have been
ordered. Lower court in Brussels ordered
filtering or blocking; can get blocking awarded in most national courts, after
balancing of rights.
Rt. Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Faculty of Laws,
University College London, London
Now we know that security camera footage doesn’t have a
copyright; ridiculous that it should have had one in the first place. ECJ is a bad referee; it’s about to start
telling us how far design law should go.
We all know the difficulties of the copyright/design interface, but they
don’t understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment