Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Renckhoff case: 6 degrees of separation from the lawful user

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

The “Renckhoff” judgment follows a prolific series of decisions, mainly on the right to communication to the public. However, it also provides us with new insights on six different levels: the concept of originality, the analysis of economic rights, the concept of a ‘new public’, the limits to the CJEU’s hyperlinking case law, the prototype of the “diligent copyright holder” and the scope of application of the teaching exception. Even if the decision itself is not favorable for copyright users, its reasoning contributes to the development of a new approach to lawful use in European Copyright law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Case C-161/17, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Dirk Renckhoff, ECLI:EU:C:2018:634.

  2. T. Synodinou [18].

  3. J.D. Litman, [12].

  4. J. Litman, [11].

  5. S. Dusollier, [7] p. 25–52.

  6. Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L 122, 17.5.1991, p. 42–46 [5]. The Directive has meanwhile been codified. See: Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version) OJ L 111, 5.5.2009, p. 16–22 [4].

  7. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77,27.3.1996, p. 20–28 [6].

  8. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Official Journal L 167, 22/06/2001 P. 0010–0019 [3].

  9. J. Litman, [12].

  10. Case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp., ECLI:EU:C:2012:407.

  11. Case C-466/12, Nils Svensson and Others v Retriever Sverige AB, ECLI:EU:C:2014:76 (the provision of a hyperlink to a work lawfully available and freely accessible on a certain website does not constitute an act of communication to a new public).

  12. Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch, Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 21 October 2014.

  13. Case C-160/15, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2016:644.

  14. Case C-435/12, ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie and Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding, ECLI:EU:C:2014:254.

  15. Case C-117/13, Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG, Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), ECLI:EU:C:2014:2196.

  16. Case C-174/15, Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) ECLI:EU:C:2016:856 (the lending of an electronic book (e-book) may, under certain conditions, be treated in the same way as the lending of a traditional book).

  17. Opinion of the Advocate General Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 25 April 2018, Case C-161/17, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff, par. 53–59.

  18. Opinion of the Advocate General Campos Sanchez-Bordona, parr. 53–59.

  19. Ibid, par. 14 of the judgment.

  20. T. Synodinou, [15], p. 93–113. For the question of originality in EU Copyright law, see: E. Rosati [13].

  21. See: Case C-604/10, Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Yahoo! UK Ltd and Others, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), ECLI:EU:C:2012:115. For an analysis of the impact of the case law of CJEU to UK copyright law, see: E. Derclaye, [2].

  22. Case C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others, Order of the Court (Third Chamber) ECLI:EU:C:2011:798.

  23. D. Brophy, [1].

  24. E. Rosati, [14].

  25. (Opinion, par. 51).

  26. Case C-117/13, Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG, Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), ECLI:EU:C:2014:2196.

  27. See: P. Bernt Hugenholtz [9], Gervais, [8] p. 207–215.

  28. Gervais, [8] op. cit., p. 211.

  29. Case C-265/16, VCAST Limited v RTI SpA, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) ECLI:EU:C:2017:913.

  30. Ph. Jougleux, [10].

  31. Case C-160/15, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) ECLI:EU:C:2016:644.

  32. See: Case C-466/12, Nils Svensson and Others v Retriever Sverige AB, ECLI:EU:C:2014:76 ⋅ Case C-160/15, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) ECLI:EU:C:2016:644 ⋅ Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch, Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 21 October 2014, Case C-527/15, Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) ECLI:EU:C:2017:300 and “Pirate bay” Case C-610/15, Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017.

  33. Par. 40 of the judgment.

  34. See Opinion, par. 75, 78, 82, 85 and 104 to 106.

  35. The contributory negligence in tort law is a failure on the part of a plaintiff to take reasonable care for his or her own safety, where such failure is a cause of the damage or harm suffered by the plaintiff. For the concept of “responsible person” in the common law of negligence, see: Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks [1856] 11 Exch 781 ⋅ Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205. See also: Dietrich, Joachim; Field, Ian, ‘The ‘Reasonable Tort Victim’: Contributory Negligence, Standard of Care and the ‘Equivalence Theory’ [2017] 41(2) Melbourne University Law Review 602 ⋅ Fleming James Jr., Contributory Negligence, 62 Yale L.J. 691 (1953). For a comparative approach, see: van Dongen Emanuel G.D, Verdam Henriëtte P, ‘The development of the concept of contributory negligence in civil and common law. A comparison’, Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 57, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2016.57.3.6.

  36. This line of reasoning has also been firmly criticized by ALAI in its Opinion in relation to the case. See: ALAI, Opinion on Case C-161/17 (Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff), Brussels, 29 May 2018.

  37. Opinion, par. 115.

  38. Opinion, par. 122 to 128.

  39. ALAI, Opinion on Case C-161/17, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Dirk Renckhoff, ECLI:EU:C:2018:634.

  40. Par. 42 of the judgment.

  41. Opinion of the European Copyright Society concerning the scope of the economic rights in light of Case C-161/17, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Dirk Renckhoff, ECLI:EU:C:2018:634 (‘Córdoba case’). Available at: https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/ecs-opinion-renckhoff-cordoba-final.pdf, with references to cases: C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH et al., EU:C:2011:239, para. 132–133; Case C-403/08 and Case C-429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd et al. v QC Leisure et al., EU:C:2011:631 para. 162–164; Case C-604/10, Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd, para. 163, Case C-117/13, Technische Universität Darmstadt v.Eugen Ulmer KG, EU: C:2014:2196, paras. 27, 31. See also: C. Geiger, ‘Defining the scope of Protection of Copyright in the EU: The Need to reconsider the acquis regarding limitations and exceptions’, in: T. Synodinou (ed.), ‘Codification of European copyright law: challenges and perspectives’, Kluwer Law International, (2012) p. 133–167.

  42. Opinion of the European Copyright Society concerning the scope of the economic rights in light of case Case C-161/17, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Dirk Renckhoff, ECLI:EU:C:2018:634 (‘Córdoba case’), op. cit.

  43. See: Case C-403/08, Football Association Premier League and Others, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011. par. 171, 172 ⋅ Case C-302/10, Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 January 2012 ⋅ Case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp, Judgment of 3 July 2012. ⋅ Case C-435/12, ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie and Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding, (2014), ⋅ Case C-463/12, Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark A/S, [2015] ⋅ Case C-160/15, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, [2016] ⋅ Case C-610/15, Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV, [2017], ECLI:EU:C:2017:456.

  44. For such an approach, see: T. Synodinou, ‘Who is lawful user in European copyright law? From a variable geometry to a taxonomy of lawful use’, in: T. Synodinou, Ph. Jougleux, Ch. Markou, Th. Prastitou (eds.), EU Internet law in the digital era, Springer (forthcoming in 2019) [19].

References

  1. Brophy, D.: All photos are created equal—the Painer case in the CJEU (2011). Available at http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/12/all-photos-are-created-equal-painer.html

  2. Derclaye, E.: Assessing the impact and reception of the Court of Justice of the Europe an Union case law on UK copyright law: What does the future hold? 240 Revue Internationale du Droit d’auteur (2014). Available at http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/3613/2/RIDA_article_derclaye_April_2014_eprints.pdf

  3. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Official Journal L 167, 22/06/2001

  4. Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version). OJ L 111, 5.5.2009

  5. Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs. OJ L 122, 17.5.1991

  6. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. OJ L 77,27.3.1996

  7. Dusollier, S.: Incidences et réalités d’un droit de contrôler l’accès en droit européen, in Le Droit d’ auteur: un contrôle de l’accès aux œuvres ? Cahiers du CRID no. 18 (2000)

  8. Gervais: (Re)structuring Copyright, a Comprehensive Path to International Copyright Reform. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton (2017)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Hugenholtz, P.B. (ed.): Copyright Reconstructed, Rethinking Copyright’s Economic Rights in a Time of Highly Dynamic Technological and Economic Change. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rijn (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jougleux, Ph.: Access to works protected by copyright law. In: Synodinou, T. (ed.) Pluralism or Universalism in International Copyright Law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn (2019), forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  11. Litman, J.: The exclusive right to read. Cardozo Arts Ent. Law J. 13, 29, 35 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Litman, J.D.: Lawful personal use (symposium: frontiers of intellectual property). Tex. Law Rev. 85(7), 1871–1920 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rosati, E.: Originality in EU Copyright Full Harmonization Through Case Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rosati, E.: Originality in copyright: a meaningless requirement? (2018). Available at http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/05/originality-in-copyright-meaningless.html

  15. Synodinou, T.: The Lawful User and a Balancing of Interests in European Copyright Law. IIC: 819–843 (2010)

  16. Synodinou, T.: The foundations of the concept of work in European copyright law. In: Synodinou, T. (ed.) Codification of European Copyright Law: Challenges and Perspectives. Kluwer Law International, AH Alphen aan den Rijn (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Synodinou, T.: The Renckhoff judgment: The CJEU swivels the faces of the Copyright Rubik’s Cube (Part II), Kluwer Copyright Blog (2018). Available at http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/10/02/renckhoff-judgment-cjeu-swivels-faces-copyright-rubiks-cube-part-ii/

  18. Synodinou, T.: The Renckhoff judgment: The CJEU swivels the faces of the Copyright Rubik’s Cube (Part I), Kluwer Copyright Blog (2018). Available at http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/09/27/renckhoff-judgment-cjeu-swivels-faces-copyright-rubiks-cube-part/

  19. Synodinou, T.: Who is lawful user in European copyright law? From a variable geometry to a taxonomy of lawful use. In: Synodinou, T., Jougleux, Ph., Markou, Ch., Prastitou, Th. (eds.) EU Internet Law in the Digital Era. Springer, Berlin (2019), forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Department, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    T. E. Synodinou

Authors
  1. T. E. Synodinou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. E. Synodinou.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article on its biggest part has been published at Kluwer Copyright Blog as a comment on the Renckhoff Judgment of the CJEU. See: T. Synodinou [16, 17].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Synodinou, T.E. The Renckhoff case: 6 degrees of separation from the lawful user. ERA Forum 20, 21–33 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00558-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00558-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation