Abstract
The first European Union Directive in the field of copyright was enacted nearly 25 years ago. Similarly to many other directives that followed, that Directive was “vertical” in scope, meaning that its “harmonising” effects were limited to the specific subject matter therein regulated (in this case, software). Other examples of “vertical harmonisation” are found in the field of photographs and databases as well as in many other European Union directives in the field of copyright, making this fragmented approach a typical trait of European Union Copyright law harmonisation. The reason for what could be labelled ‘piecemeal legislation’ can be linked to the limited power that the European Union had, until recently, in regulating copyright. As it can be easily verified from their preambles, all European Union Copyright Directives are mainly grounded in the smooth functioning of the internal market. It is the internal market—rather than copyright—that has driven the harmonisation of European Union copyright law to date. Nevertheless, if we look at the entire body of European Union copyright law today (the so called acquis communautaire) it certainly appears much more harmonised than what may be suggested by the above. The reason for this “unexpected” situation can most likely be found in the fundamental role that the Court of Justice of the European Union has played in interpreting and—some would argue—in creating European Union copyright law. Using the example of the originality standard, this paper offers an overview of the past and current state of European Union copyright, of the case law that has allowed the Court of Justice of the European Union to develop and affirm its own concepts and indicates what could and should be expected for the future of European Union copyright law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The word “original” is used twice in article 2(3) with two different meanings. The article states: “Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work”.
- 2.
As it is well known, the English version of the Berne Convention confusingly reports “selection AND arrangement”. However, the original official French text speaks of “selection OU arrangement”, and this is the version that in case of interpretative contrast prevails. Therefore, even if the English translations still nowadays reports “AND”, the real requirement is—and has always been—“OR”. See Ricketson and Ginsburg 2005, 8.87.
- 3.
“A line therefore seems to run from article 2(5) through article 2(3) to article 2(1) as follows: “original translations, adaptations, etc.” under article 2(5) and collections of works that are “intellectual creations” under article 2(3) are to be protected as “literary and artistic works” under article 2(1), suggesting that both originality and intellectual creation are correlative and implicit requirements for literary and artistic productions that otherwise fall under article 2(1)”.
- 4.
This is the classical formula historically employed by courts in common law countries and especially in the UK, although the precise wording varied over time adding or substituting elements.
- 5.
France requires “oeuvre de l'esprit”, Germany personal intellectual creations, Italy works of ingenuity of creative character.
- 6.
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) [2008] OJ C115/13 enshrines the principle of “conferral” on the basis of which the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties.
- 7.
There are other provisions of the Treaty that the EU legislature identified as a legal basis to regulate copyright such as article 53 (freedom of establishment), article 167 (common cultural heritage), and article 169 (consumer protection). Nonetheless, article 114 remains the single principal source of powers used to regulate copyright.
- 8.
Other interventions in the field of intellectual property can be seen in Directive 89/104/EEC on the approximation of trade mark laws (now replaced by Directive 2008/95/EC), and Directive 87/54/EEC on the legal protection of topographies. Recently, article 118 was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community [2007] OJ C306/1 empowering the EU to create European intellectual property rights. It must be noted, however, that article 118 has enabled the creation of “uniform” intellectual property rights as opposed to “harmonising” the laws of Member States. Accordingly, article 118 constitutes the legal basis for the creation of a unitary title, indicatively through a EU Regulation, which is directly applicable in all Member States.
- 9.
This can be observed in different documents of the EC. In the Green paper on copyright and the challenge of technology: copyright issues requiring immediate action, for example, it can be read that the “Commission concluded that a directive on the legal protection of computer programs is a necessary step for the completion of the internal market” and that “the creation of a European information services market, currently divided by juridical and linguistic barriers, is of prime importance” (European Commission 1988, 5.4.1, 6.2.1).
- 10.
Football Dataco v Yahoo [2012], 53 (1): “the significant labour and skill required for setting up that database cannot as such justify such a protection if they do not express any originality in the selection or arrangement of the data which that database contains”.
- 11.
Articles 2(5) and 2(8) of the Berne Convention respectively deal with collections of literary or artistic works which constitutes ‘intellectual creations’ and with news of the day having the character or mere items of press information.
- 12.
However this interpretation would contrast with the plain meaning of the Design Regulation, especially article 96(2). The latter seems to apply to both Community Registered and Unregistered Designs and therefore Member States should be free to determine the level of originality for Community Unregistered Designs. Since the protection of UCD is automatic upon creation this situation appears in logical contradiction with the statement of the ECJ at paragraph 34 of Flos v. Semeraro [2011].
- 13.
As it is known: C-158/86 (Warner) led to Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property; C-341/87 (EMI Electorla) led to Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights; C-62/79 (Coditel) led to Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission.
- 14.
Although the element of a “personal stamp of the author” was originally introduced by the EU legislature.
References
Benabou, Valerie. 1997. Droits d’auteur, droit voisins et eroit communautaire. Brussels: Bruylant.
Bently, Lionel. 2012. The return of industrial copyright? European Intellectual Property Review 34: 654–672.
Bently, Lionel, and Brad Sherman. 2014. Intellectual property law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beunen, Annemarie. 2012. Geschriftenbescherming: The Dutch protection for non-original writings. In A century of Dutch copyright law, ed. P. Bernt Hugenholtz, A. Quaedvlieg, and D. Visser. Amsterdam: DeLex.
Cornish, William, David Llewelyn, and Tanya Aplin. 2013. Intellectual property: Patents, copyright, trademarks, and allied rights. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Davison, Mark, and P. Bernt Hugenholtz. 2005. Football fixtures, horseraces and spin-offs: The ECJ domesticates the database right. European Intellectual Property Review 27(3): 113–118.
Derclaye, Estelle. 2014. The Court of Justice copyright case law: Quo vadis? European Intellectual Property Review 36(11): 716–723.
Dietrich, Nils, Lucie Guibault, Thomas Margoni, Krzysztof Siewicz, and Andreas Wiebe. 2013. Possible forms of legal protection. In Safe to be open: Study on the protection of research data and recommendations for access and usage, ed. Lucie Guibault and Andreas Wiebe. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
European Commission. 1985. Proposal for a directive on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products. The Hague: European Commission.
European Commission. 1988. Green paper on copyright and the challenge of technology: Copyright issues requiring immediate action. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. 2000. Report on the implementation and effects of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs. The Hague: European Commission.
European Commission. 2004. Review of the EC legal framework in the field of copyright and related rights. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. 2006. Proposal for a Council Directive harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights. The Hague: European Commission.
European Commission. 2013. Public consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules: consultation document. The Hague: European Commission.
European Commission. 2015. A digital single market strategy for Europe. The Hague: European Commission.
European Copyright Society. 2014. Submission to the public consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules. http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ECS-answer-to-EC-consultation-on-copyright-Review.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2015.
Fitzgerald, Brian, and Benedict Atkinson (eds.). 2011. Copyright future, copyright freedom. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Franzosi, Mario. 2009. Design italiano e diritto italiano del design: una lezione per l’Europa? Rivista di Diritto Industriale, Parte I 2: 71.
Gervais, Daniel. 2002. Feist goes global: A comparative analysis of the notion of originality in copyright law 949. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 49: 949–981.
Gervais, Daniel, and Elizabeth Judge. 2005. Intellectual property: The law in Canada. Quebec: Carswell.
Ginsburg, Jane. 1992. No ‘sweat?’ Copyright and other protection of works of information after Feist v. Rural Telephone. Columbia Law Review 92: 338–388.
Goldstein, Paul, and P. Bernt Hugenholtz. 2013. International copyright: Principles, law, and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, Wendy. 1993. A property right in self-expression: Equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. Yale Law Journal 102(7): 1533–1609.
Gravells, Nigel. 2007. Authorship and originality: The persistent influence of Walter v. Lane. Intellectual Property Quarterly (3):267–293.
Griffiths, Johnathan. 2013. Dematerialization, pragmatism and the European copyright revolution. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 33(4): 769–790.
Judge, Elizabeth, and Daniel Gervais. 2010. Of silos and constellations: Comparing notions of originality in copyright law. Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 27: 375–408.
Koenraad, Hidde. 2013. Dutch Supreme Court Tripp Trapp children’s chair cases. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 8(12): 909–912.
Lucas, André, Henri-Jacques Lucas, and Agnés Lucas-Schloetter. 2012. Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique. Paris: LexisNexis.
Margoni, Thomas. 2013. Not for designers: On the inadequacies of EU Design Law and how to fix it. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law 4(3): 225–248.
Merges, Robert. 2007. Locke for the masses: Property rights and the products of collective creativity. Hofstra Law Review 36: 1179–1191.
Montanari, Massimo. 2010. L’Industrial Design tra modelli, marchi di forma e diritto d’autore. Rivista di Diritto Industriale, LIX Parte I: 7.
Perry, Mark, and Thomas Margoni. 2011. Scientific and critical editions of public domain works: An example of European copyright (dis)harmonization. Canadian Intellectual Property Law Review 27: 157–170.
Ramalho, Ana. 2014. Conceptualising the European Union’s competence in copyright: What can the EU do? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 45(2): 178–200.
Ricketson, Sam. 2009. Threshold requirements for copyright protection under the International Convention. World Intellectual Property Organisation Journal 1: 51–62.
Ricketson, Sam, and Jane Ginsburg. 2005. International copyright and neighbouring rights: The Berne Convention and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rouland, Norbert. 1994. Legal anthropology. London: Stanford University Press.
Schricker, Gherard. 1995. Farewell to the “level of creativity“ (Schöpfungshöhe) in German copyright law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 26(1): 41–48.
Turner, Amedee. 1986. Report on the Proposal for a Directive on the legal protection of original topographies of semiconductor products. The Hague: Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizen’s Rights.
van Eechoud, Mireille. 2012. Along the road to uniformity: Diverse readings of the Court of Justice judgments on copyright works. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 1: 60–80.
van Eechoud, Mireille, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Stef van Gompel, Lucie Guibault, and Natali Helberger. 2009. Harmonizing European copyright law: The challenges of a better lawmaking. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
van Gompel, Stef, and Erlend Lavik. 2013. Quality, merit, aesthetics and purpose: AN inquiry into EU copyright law’s eschewal of other criteria than originality. Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur 236: 100–295.
Walter, Michael, and Silke von Lewinski. 2010. European copyright law: A commentary. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Margoni, T. (2016). The Harmonisation of EU Copyright Law: The Originality Standard. In: Perry, M. (eds) Global Governance of Intellectual Property in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31177-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31177-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31176-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31177-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)