Abstract
The protection of intellectual property has always sought to reconcile the monopoly granted to the author with the public interest. This was the reason for the inclusion of exceptions and limitations in copyright legislation. Belgium incorporated most of the exceptions provided by the Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. This country thus has an important list of exceptions and limitations granted to citizens, demonstrating a genuine attempt to balance copyright holders’ and users’ rights and freedoms. If the intention of the legislator is laudable, the exceptions become increasingly complex and harder to apply. The information society and the Internet challenge the intellectual property law, which oscillates between the temptation to provide more protection and the desire to embrace these new tools to encourage creation. The Belgian legal framework carries interesting tools such as the triple test, the mandatory nature of the exceptions and the recent simplification of the private copying exception. Nevertheless, an examination of the scope of the main exceptions and limitations in copyright reveals that the system might be inefficient. This conclusion can be reinforced by the requirement of strict interpretation of exceptions, and the rejection of a “fair use” exception. Recently, Belgium faced the emergence of a stronger intervention by the EUCJ and ECHR, to alleviate this problem and to use fundamental rights of users as external safeguard. More and more, the European jurisdictions are calling for an effective effect of exceptions and limitations, rather than a strict and restrictive interpretation.
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.
Insertion of the exception for reproduction and communication to the public for news reporting purposes.
- 2.
Insertion of exceptions of execution in the family circle, reprography, private copying, parody and execution of works during a public examination.
- 3.
Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, JO 1996 L 77, p. 20.
- 4.
Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2011 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, JO 2001 L 167, p. 10.
- 5.
Insertion of exceptions for provisional copies, performance in the context of school activities, the communication of works for the purpose of illustrating teaching, reproduction for preservation purposes by the listed institutions, and the consultation in These same establishments, ephemeral recordings made by broadcasting organisations, exceptions for the disabled, reproduction and communication intended to announce public exhibitions and sales of artistic works as well as the exception of reproduction in favour of hospitals, penitentiary establishments and establishments for assistance to young people; S. Dusollier et M. Lambrecht, Les exceptions ont 20 ans: âge de raison ou de refondation?. In Cabay, Delforge, Fossoul, Lambrecht, 20 ans de nouveau droit d’auteur, Anthémis 2015.
- 6.
Law modifying some provisions from the Code de droit économique, M.B. 2016, n° 2016011538, p. 91843.
- 7.
Article XI. 172, 6 1 para 2 and § 2 of the Code de droit économique.
- 8.
Article 2.8 Bern Convention.
- 9.
Article 9 (2) of the TRIPs Agreement; S. Dusollier and A. De Francquen, Manuels de droits intellectuels, Anthémis, 2015, p. 60 and p. 66.
- 10.
Doc 54 2122/001, p. 7.
- 11.
S. Dusollier and A. De Francquen, Manuels de droits intellectuels, Anthémis, 2015, p. 102.
- 12.
Consequently, Belgium do not have a “catch all” exception such as fair use.
- 13.
S. Dusollier et M. Lambrecht, Les exceptions ont 20 ans: âge de raison ou de refondation?. In Cabay, Delforge, Fossoul, Lambrecht, 20 ans de nouveau droit d’auteur, Anthémis 2015, pp. 204–205.
- 14.
M.-C. Janssens, Les exceptions et restrictions au doit d’auteur en Belgique (Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright in Belgium) (1999). In The Boundaries of Copyright – Les Frontières du Droit d’Auteur, ALAI – Australian Copyright Council, 1999, p. 176. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2302525. Accessed 9 September 2017.
- 15.
S. Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des œuvres dans l’univers numérique, Larcier 2005, p. 504.
- 16.
Recital 31; see CJEU, case C-467/08, Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE), ECR 2010 I 10055; CJEU, case C-201/13, Deckmyn, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132. See also B. Michaux, L’impression 3D: un défi supplémentaire pour le droit d’auteur. In B Michaux, L’impression 3D: défis et opportunités pour la propriété intellectuelle, Larcier, pp. 104–105.
- 17.
CJEU, case C-201/13, Deckmyn, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132, pt 31.
- 18.
M.-Chr. Janssens, Le droit moral en Belgique, Les cahiers de propriété intellectuelle 2013 (25), p. 106–107.
- 19.
Brussels, 29 May 2008, A&M, 2009.
- 20.
Exposé des motifs, Doc. Parl., Ch. Rep., sess. 2003–2004, n° 51-1137/1, comments on Art. 4.
- 21.
DOC 51 1137/013, p. 15.
- 22.
Exposé des motifs, Doc. Parl., Ch. Rep., sess. 2003–2004, n° 51-1137/1, comments on art. 4, p. 15; F. Brison et B. Michaux, La nouvelle loi du 22 mai 2005 adapte le droit d’auteur au numérique, A&M 2005, p. 216.
- 23.
S. Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des œuvres dans l’univers numérique, Larcier 2005, pp. 438–439.
- 24.
S. Dusollier, L’encadrement des exceptions au droit d’auteur par le test des trois étapes, IRDI 2005, p. 216.
- 25.
We underline. On this topic, see L. Guibault, Pre-emption issues in the digital environment: can copyright limitations be overriden by contractual agreements under European law? https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0a58/e9793a91061ea49607519732a10cfaefda51.pdf?_ga=2.104309568.1980474753.1495201101-1174523319.1495195011. Accessed 16 May 2017.
- 26.
S. Dusollier, Les exceptions au droit d’auteur dans l’environnement numérique: évolutions dangereuses, Communication commerce électronique 2001(9).
- 27.
The functionality of the cache allows the link to be stored in a cache memory, which makes it possible to consult this copy at any time. You can see the appearance of an archive.
- 28.
Google’s position to consider that nothing infringes copyright until the copyright holders are opposed cannot be followed. Copyright is conceived on the granting of a prior authorisation of the holders; Bruxelles (9e ch.), 5 mai 2011, R.D.T.I., 44/2011, § 49.
- 29.
Pres. civ. Brussels, 13 February 2007, A&M, 2007/1–2, pp. 107 and seq.
- 30.
Brussels (9e ch.), 5 May 2011, R.D.T.I., 44/2011.
- 31.
The judge based his decision on Article 5 (3) (a) of the Bern Convention and et Regulation 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).
- 32.
Brussels (9e ch.), 5 May 2011, R.D.T.I., 44/2011, § 25.
- 33.
Brussels (9e ch.), 5 May 2011, R.D.T.I., 44/2011, § 26.
- 34.
Google has also advanced the exception of fair use (which does not exist in Belgian law and in Directive 2001/29), as well as exceptions for quotation and reporting of current events. Google also considered that, in fact, it did not commit any act of communication to the public. The Court of Appeal dismissed all of his arguments.
- 35.
Article XI. 190, 17° CDE.
- 36.
Article 5.3 b) Directive 2001/29.
- 37.
Article XI. 190, 15° CDE.
- 38.
Article XI. 190, 12° CDE.
- 39.
See Article 5.2, c) Directive 2001/29.
- 40.
S. Dussolier, Queen mary intellectual property research institute, p. 124. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosoc-study-annex_en.pdf.
- 41.
Article XI. 190, 13° CDE.
- 42.
It is regrettable that the legislator does not provide a more precise explanation of “the objectives of promoting educational activities”.
- 43.
Article XI. 191/1, 1° CDE.
- 44.
Doc 54 2122/001, p. 11.
- 45.
The copyright protection extends to the copyright holders for 70 years beyond the death of the author.
- 46.
Article XI. 191/1, 5° CDE.
- 47.
Article XI. 191/1, 3° CDE.
- 48.
Before the entry into force of the Law of 22 December 2016 amending the Code of Economic Law, the reproduction exception for purposes of illustration of teaching and scientific research was somewhat different: The fragmentary or integral reproduction of articles, works of plastic or graphic art, or that of short fragments of other works where such reproduction is effected on paper or on a similar medium by means of any photographic technique or any other method which produces a similar result, for the purpose of illustration of teaching or scientific research, to the extent justified by the non-profit-making aim pursued and which does not prejudice the normal exploitation of the work, provided that, unless this is not possible, the source, including the name of the author, is indicated. (Article XI. 190, 6° CDE).
- 49.
Article 34 of Explanatory Memorandum.
- 50.
This term refers to the Bern Convention (Article 10, § 2) and the Directive 2001/29/EC (Article 5, §3 a).
- 51.
Ph. Laurent, Les nouvelles exceptions au droit d’auteur en faveur de l’enseignement: l’ère de l’e-learning, A&M 2008(3), p. 184.
- 52.
Doc. parl., Chambre, sess 2003–2004, n° 1137/001, p. 11.
- 53.
Ph. Laurent, Les nouvelles exceptions au droit d’auteur en faveur de l’enseignement: l’ère de l’e-learning, A&M 2008(3), pp. 182–186.
- 54.
Doc 54 2122/001, p. 12.
- 55.
Article XI. 191/1, 2° CDE.
- 56.
Ph. Laurent, Les nouvelles exceptions au droit d’auteur en faveur de l’enseignement: l’ère de l’e-learning, A&M 2008(3), p. 188; F. Brison and B. Michaux, La nouvelle loi du 22 mai 2005 adapte le droit d’auteur au numérique, A&M 2005(3), p. 125.
- 57.
Article 3 Directive 2001/29.
- 58.
Recital 23.
- 59.
B. Michaux, Etendue des droits: jurisprudence choisie de la Cour de cassation, A&M 2004(5), p. 475.
- 60.
Ph. Laurent, Les nouvelles exceptions au droit d’auteur en faveur de l’enseignement: l’ère de l’e-learning, A&M 2008(3), pp. 187–188.
- 61.
However, some authors are of the contrary opinion. According to them, the term execution is a synonym for communication: H. Vanhees, Het ‘publieke’ karakter van een mededeling opnieuw het voorwerp van rechtspraak van het Hof van Cassatie, A&M 2006(2), p. 184. However, we disagree with regard to the definition of communication to the public at European level. Terms “in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them”, seem to be in contradiction with the requirement of a local communication.
- 62.
Ph. Laurent, Les nouvelles exceptions au droit d’auteur en faveur de l’enseignement: l’ère de l’e-learning, A&M 2008(3), p. 187.
- 63.
S. Dusollier, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, p. 125. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosoc-study-annex_en.pdf.
- 64.
Article XI. 191/1, 4° CDE.
- 65.
For example: a network with which the teacher and students must have a password in order to benefit from the teaching; Doc. parl., Chambre, sess. 2°°3-2004, n° 1137/013, p. 34.
- 66.
The companies organising training for online teaching or any other institution other than pure educational or research establishment cannot benefit from this exception. On this topic, S. Dussolier, Queen mary intellectual property reseach institute, p. 127. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosoc-study-annex_en.pdf.
- 67.
Article XI. 191/1, 4° CDE.
- 68.
Ph. Laurent, Les nouvelles exceptions au droit d’auteur en faveur de l’enseignement: l’ère de l’e-learning, A&M 2008(3), pp. 190–191.
- 69.
Article XI. 191/1, 2° CDE.
- 70.
Article XI. 190, 1° CDE.
- 71.
Pt 37.
- 72.
In another legal provision, the legislator also authorizes quotation for teaching and scientific research purposes.
- 73.
Article XI. 189, §1 CDE.
- 74.
Pts 31–35 of the decision.
- 75.
CJEU, case C-201/13, Deckmyn, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132.
- 76.
Pt 19.
- 77.
Pt 20.
- 78.
Pt 21.
- 79.
Article XI. 190, 3° and 5° of the Code de droit économique.
- 80.
Prior to the entry into force of the Law of 22 December 2016, there was a distinction between works reproduced on paper or on a similar medium (known as the reprographic exception) and reproduction on any other medium than paper (private copying exception).
- 81.
During the discussion concerning the law of 22 December 2016 that amends the Code de droit économique, the Belgian legislator decided to maintain the use of “family circle” instead of the European Union concept. The European definition is reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects (Article 5.2 b). The two main reasons were that the change could lead to a legal insecurity and that the concept of family circle has to be interpreted in accordance with the Directive. Doc 54 2122/001, p. 10.
- 82.
Cass., 26 January 2006, C.05.0219.N.
- 83.
Cass. (1 Ch.), 18 February 2000, R.W., 2000, p. 908; Cass. (1 Ch.), 21 November 2003, A&M, 2004, p. 35; Cass. (1 Ch.), 26 January 2006, NjW, 2006, p. 168; S. Dusollier and A. De Francquen, Manuels de droits intellectuels, Anthémis, 2015, p. 105.
- 84.
New Article XI. 190, 5° CDE.
- 85.
CJEU, case C-467/08, Padawan, ECR 2010 I 10055 and CJEU, case C-435/12, ACI ADAM, ECLI:EU:C:2014:254.
- 86.
CJEU, case C-467/08, Padawan, ECLI:EU:C:2010:620, pt 37.
- 87.
A. Cruquenaire, F. Delnooz, S. Hallemans, C. Ker and B. Michaux, Chronique de jurisprudence, RDTI 2015, p. 52.
- 88.
The High Court of Belgium, Cour de Cassation, set aside a judgment from the Court of Appeal of Brussels. The Court of Appel decided that an occasional seller on DVD on eBay is not an intra-community acquire. Consequently, the Cour de Cassation has a broad interpretation of this notion and omit the fact that the Court of Justice limited the perception of a remuneration to merchants; A. Cruquenaire, F. Delnooz, S. Hallemans, C. Ker and B. Michaux, Chronique de jurisprudence, RDTI 2015, p. 56.
- 89.
See former Article XI. 235 ff CDE.
- 90.
Civ. Liège (7ème Ch.), 18 April 2013, Auvibel c. Tecteo, A&M, 2013/5, p. 387.
- 91.
See CJEU, case C-521/11, Amazon c. Austro-Mechana, ECLI:EU:C:2013:515, pts 24, 31–32; A. Cruquenaire, F. Delnooz, S. Hallemans, C. Ker et B. Michaux, Chronique de jurisprudence, RDTI 2015, p. 54.
- 92.
Civ. Bruxelles (réf.), 25 November 2013, Auvibel c. Amazon.
- 93.
CJEU, case C-457/11, VG Wort, ECLI:EU:C:2013:426, pt 37.
- 94.
Civ. Bruxelles, (16° ch.), 6 November 2012, J.L.M.B, 2013, p. 702.
- 95.
Bruxelles (9° ch.), 23 October 2013, JLMB, 2014/10, p. 475.
- 96.
CJEU, case C-572/13, Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel, ECLI:EU:C:2015:750.
- 97.
The Court refers to recitals 35 and 38 of the Directive 2001/29.
- 98.
Pt 44.
- 99.
Pt 64.
- 100.
While it is in principle the persons who made the copies who are required to compensate the actual damage suffered by the right holders, the Court of Justice did not object to the fact that the costs for fair compensation are provided by persons with reproductive devices and supports. These can then pass on the cost of the user fee. The Court adopts this position with a view to efficiency and effectiveness.
- 101.
Pts 65–88.
- 102.
Pt 79.
- 103.
Pt 85.
- 104.
Consequently, the remuneration to publishers does not apply for the exception of private copy. The Belgian legislator feared that it could be an infringement to the free movement of goods. See Doc 54 2122/001, p. 16.
- 105.
Articles XI. 229 CDE and following and Doc 54 2122/001, p. 4.
- 106.
Article XI. 190, 2° CDE.
- 107.
C. Bernaut, Le cas particulier du text and data mining. In: C. Bernault (ed), Open access et droit d’auteur, Larcier 2016, pp. 180–186.
- 108.
Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, JO 1996 L 77, p. 20.
- 109.
Loi du 31 août 1998 transposant la directive 96/9 du 11 mars 1996 sur la protection juridique des bases de données, M.B, 14 November 1998, p. 36913.
- 110.
The producer of database, the person who supports the investment.
- 111.
C. Bernaut, Le cas particulier du text and data mining. In: C. Bernault (ed), Open access et droit d’auteur, Larcier 2016, p. 173.
- 112.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Commitee and the Committee of the Regions, “Towards a modern, more European copyright framework”, COM(2015) 626 final.
- 113.
S. Dusollier et M. Lambrecht, Les exceptions ont 20 ans: âge de raison ou de refondation?. In Cabay, Delforge, Fossoul, Lambrecht, 20 ans de nouveau droit d’auteur, Anthémis 2015, p. 209.
- 114.
Database right prohibits the extraction and reuse of substantial part, evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively. The expression “substantial part, evaluated quantitatively” refers to the volume of data extracted from the database and/or re-utilized, and must be assessed in relation to the volume of the contents of the whole of that database.
The expression “substantial part, evaluated qualitatively” refers to the scale of the investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of the subject of the act of extraction and/or re-utilisation. A quantitatively negligible part of the contents of a database may in fact represent, in terms of obtaining, verification or presentation, significant human, technical or financial investment; CJEU, case C-203/02, The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2004:695, pts 70–71.
- 115.
Cryptographic mechanisms, anti-copy measures, for examples.
- 116.
Articles XI. 291 and following CDE.
- 117.
Article 291, § 2 CDE.
- 118.
Voluntary measures must therefore be taken for exceptions to the making of an anthology, reprography whether for educational purposes or for private purposes, a digital copy for illustration purposes only, E-learning, heritage preservation, ephemeral recordings by broadcasters, exceptions for disabled people, exceptions for social institutions.
- 119.
Articles XI. 336 and XI. 291, §3 CDE; F. Brison et B. Michaux, La nouvelle loi du 22 mai 2005 adapte le droit d’auteur au numérique, A&M 2005, pp. 218–221.
- 120.
Article XI. 291 § 4 CDE.
- 121.
Article XI. 165, al. 5 CDE.
- 122.
ECJ, case C-456/06, Cassina, ECR 2008 I 2731.
- 123.
Article XI. 165, al. 6 CDE.
- 124.
See pts 7 and 60 of CJEU, case C-128/11, Usedsoft, ECLI:EU:C:2012:407.
- 125.
Article 4.2 of the Directive 2009/24/EC and XI. 298 c) CDE.
- 126.
CJEU, case C-128/11, Usedsoft, ECLI:EU:C:2012:407.
- 127.
Paragraph 49.
- 128.
Nevertheless, the reseller has to destroy his own copy; CJEU, case C-128/11, Usedsoft, ECLI:EU:C:2012:407.
- 129.
D. Voorhoof, Copyright and the right to freedom of expression and information. In: Cabay, Delforge, Fossoul, Lambrecht, 20 ans de nouveau droit d’auteur, Anthémis 2015 p. 226.
- 130.
CJEU, case C-360/10, Sabam v Netlog, ECLI:EU:C:2012:85,and Recital 4 Directive 2001/29.
- 131.
CJEU, case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended v Sabam, ECR 2011 I 11959 and case C-360/10, Sabam v Netlog, ECLI:EU:C:2012:85.
- 132.
For a case in which the Court of Justice decided that copyright correctly balanced with personal data protection: CJEU, case C-461/10, Bonnier Audio AB e.a. v Perfect Communication Sweden AB, ECLI:EU:C:2012:219.
- 133.
See CJEU, case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel, § 47.
- 134.
CJEU, case C-201/13, Deckmyn, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132.
- 135.
CJEU, case C-117/13, Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2196. For a case where freedom of expression prevails: CJEU, case C-201/11, UEFA v European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2013:519.
- 136.
ECtHR, Ashby c. Donald et Neij Sunde c. Suède, 10 jan 2013, n° 367/69/08; Bruxelles, 27 juin 1997, I.R.D.I, 1997, p. 270.
- 137.
D. Voorhoof, Copyright and the right to freedom of expression and information. In: Cabay, Delforge, Fossoul, Lambrecht, 20 ans de nouveau droit d’auteur, Anthémis 2015.
- 138.
ECJ, case C-238/87, Volvo, ECR 1998 6211; ECJ, case C-241/91, Magill, ECR 1995 I 743; ECJ, case C-418/01, IMS, ECR 2004 I 5039.
- 139.
B. Michaux, Le droit des bases de données, Kluwer 2005, pp. 69–82.
- 140.
See S. Dusollier and A. De Francquen, Manuels de droits intellectuels, Anthémis, 2015, p. 56ff.
- 141.
See S. Dusollier and M. Lambrecht, Les exceptions ont 20 ans: âge de raison ou de refondation?. In Cabay, Delforge, Fossoul, Lambrecht, 20 ans de nouveau droit d’auteur, Anthémis 2015, p. 219.
- 142.
S. Dusollier et M. Lambrecht, Les exceptions ont 20 ans: âge de raison ou de refondation?. In Cabay, Delforge, Fossoul, Lambrecht, 20 ans de nouveau droit d’auteur, Anthémis 2015, pp. 204–208.
- 143.
S. Dusollier et M. Lambrecht, Les exceptions ont 20 ans: âge de raison ou de refondation?. In Cabay, Delforge, Fossoul, Lambrecht, 20 ans de nouveau droit d’auteur, Anthémis 2015, pp. 213–219.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Knockaert, M. (2018). Belgium. In: Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P., Këllezi, P. (eds) Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71419-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71419-6_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71418-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71419-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)