Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

EU Digital Copyright Law and the End-User pp 77–109Cite as

The legal treatment of copyright exceptions under secondary EU law

  • Chapter

Abstract

Before the enactment of the InfoSoc Directive in May 2001, EU law had addressed the issue of copyright exceptions in a purely “vertical” manner, i.e., with regard to new and highly specific subject matters such as computer programmes and databases.249 In 1992, another intervention in this field came with the harmonisation of particular types of rights: the rights of rental and lending and the so-called “neighbouring” rights.250 A horizontal (i.e. general) regulation came into play only with the InfoSoc Directive, which was expected to define the “exceptions and limitations” set out by Member States “more harmoniously”.251

See Articles 5 and 6 of the 1991 Software Directive and Articles 6, 8 and 9 of the 1996 Database Directive.

See 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, OJ L 346, 27.11.1992, p. 61.

See Recital 31 of the InfoSoc Directive.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See Cornish and Llewelyn, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, op. cit., p. 441.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Communication from the Commission of 20.11.1996, Follow-up to the Green Paper on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, COM(96) 586 final.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Commentaires du Legal Advisory Board sur la Communication de la Commission du 20 Novembre 1996, available (in French) at: http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/fr/proprint/labcomment.htm. In May 1985, the European Commission established a Legal Advisory Board (LAB) with the task of increasing the awareness of the legal challenges related to the creation of a European information market. The main task of the LAB was that of submitting ideas and recommendations to the Commission on eliminating disparities and aligning national legal provisions in fields such as intellectual property and access to information. More information on the LAB can be found at: http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/lab/labdef.html.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Cohen Jehoram, ‘European Copyright law’, op. cit., p. 542.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See Cohen Jehoram, ‘European Copyright Law’, op. cit., p. 542; Hart, ‘The Copyright in the Information Society Directive: an Overview’, op. cit., pp. 59–61.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Cohen Jehoram, ‘European Copyright Law’, op. cit., p. 542; and Guibault, Le tir manqué de la Directive européenne sur le droit d’auteur dans la société de l’information, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, Publications, available at http://www.ivir.nl, at §3.1.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Such critical remark to the approach taken by the Directive on exceptions was expressed by Hugenholtz, ‘Why the Directive is Unimportant’, op. cit., p. 501 (“How can a legislature in its right mind even contemplate an exhaustive list of exceptions [...] when the internet produces new business models and novel uses almost each day?”); and Vinje,’ should We Begin Digging Copyright’s Grave’, op. cit., at 553–554 (“the best intellectual property is generally the most flexible legislation, in particular so it does not become obsolete as technology develops [...] contrary to the approach taken in the WIPO Copyright Treaty, the Directive goes so far as to prohibit Member States from adopting new exceptions that take account of technological change [...]”).

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Cohen Jehoram, ‘European Copyright Law’, op. cit., p. 542.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Guibault, Le tir manqué de la Directive européenne, op. cit., §3.1, who commented upon the explanatory memorandum of the project of transposition of the InfoSoc Directive into Dutch law.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works; see also the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, Morocco on 15 April 1994, available at: http://www.wto.org; and the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted on 20 December 1996, available at: http://www.wipo.int/treaties.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, op. cit., pp. 47–48.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, op. cit., p. 48; Cohen Jehoram, ‘Restrictions on Copyright’, op. cit., pp. 359–60.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Samuelson, ‘Challenges for the World Intellectual Property Organization’, (21) EIPR 1999, p. 581.

    Google Scholar 

  14. World Trade Organisation, United States — Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act, Report of the Panel, WT/DS160/R, 15 June 2000 (hereinafter “WTO’s Panel decision”). For an in-depth analysis, see Ginsburg, ‘Toward Supranational Copyright Law? The WTO Panel Decision and the “Three-Step Test” for Copyright Exceptions’, (187) RIDA 2001, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, op. cit., pp. 126–27; Cohen Jehoram, ‘Restrictions on Copyright’, op. cit., p. 361.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Ricketson, The Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works: 1886–1986, London 1987, p. 535; Cohen Jehoram, ‘Restrictions on Copyright’, op. cit., p. 361.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, op. cit., 140; Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres, op. cit., p. 445.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See generally Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, op. cit., pp. 128–133.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres, op. cit., p. 446; Marzano, Diritto d’Autore e Digital Technologies, Il Digital Copyright nei trattati OMPI, nel DMCA e nella normativa comunitaria, Giuffré, Milano, 2005, p. 261; Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, op. cit., p. 181.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See Ginsburg, ‘Toward Supranational Copyright Law?’, op. cit., p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  21. More explicitly, Cohen Jehoram, ‘Restrictions on Copyright’, op. cit., p. 362, spoke of “a pure case of pork barrel for the American restaurant owners”.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Ginsburg, ‘Toward a Supranational Copyright Law?’, op. cit., p. 51; Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres, op. cit., p. 446.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Indebted to Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, op. cit., p. 177. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Artistic and Literary Works was revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967: see the website of the WIPO at http://www.wipo.int/treaties.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See Cohen Jehoram, ‘Restrictions on Copyright,’ op. cit., p. 361; Marzano, Diritto d’Autore e Digital Technologies, op. cit., p. 264.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See Guibault, Le tir manqué, op. cit., §3.1.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See the comprehensive Report released by the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), Implementing the EU Copyright Directive, available at: http://www.fipr.org/, p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See Hart, ‘The Copyright in the Information Society Directive’, op. cit., p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See Vinje, ‘Should We Begin Digging Copyright’s Grave?’, op. cit., p. 553. Contra Hart, ‘The Copyright in the Information Society Directive’, op. cit., p. 61, who seems to view the re-statement of the three-step test under EU law as a measure ensuring the intra-Community enforcement of the test. Hart argued that any objection to whether Member States formulate their exceptions correctly “would have to be pursued by taking legal action against the Member State to seek the revision or removal of the exception”.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See Cohen Jehoram, ‘Restrictions on Copyright’, op. cit., p. 364.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, op. cit., p. 281.

    Google Scholar 

  31. This view is shared by Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres, op. cit., pp. 439–441; Guibault, Le tir manqué, op. cit., §3.3; and Cohen Jehoram, ‘Restrictions on Copyright and their Abuse’, op. cit., p. 364. Contra Hart, ‘The Copyright in the Information Society Directive’, op. cit., p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  32. The absence in the InfoSoc Directive of a “contract interface” dealing with the contractual overriding of copyright exceptions is examined by Heide, ‘Copyright, Contract and the Legal Protection of Technological Measures’, op. cit., p. 9; and Guibault, Le tir manqué, op. cit., §3.1 (“À quoi bon reconnaître des exceptions au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins si celles-ci peuvent être écartées dans n’importe quelle circonstance, par n’importe quel contrat?”).

    Google Scholar 

  33. See Heide, ‘Copyright, Contract and the Legal Protection of Technological Measures’, op. cit., p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibidem.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See Article 5(2), letters (a), (c), (e). The term “minor reservation” is used in the Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC, op. cit., p. 45, to refer to copyright exceptions that clearly have a de minimis character.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See Hugenholtz, Guibault, and van Geffen, The Future of Levies in a Digital Environment, Final Report, Institute for Information Law, Amsterdam 2003, available at: http://www.ivir.nl/staff/hugenholtz.html.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See Hart, ‘The Copyright in the Information Society Directive’, op. cit., p. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See Commission of the European Communities, Copyright levy reform, Commission’s Work Programme for 2006 — Roadmap, at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See the speech given by Charlie McCreevy (European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services), Address to the European-American Business Council/Business Software Alliance Conference on Digital Rights Management, High level Industry Seminar/ Global Industry Roundtable on Levies and DRMs, Brussels, 12 October 2005, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/copyright-infso/copyright-infso_en.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  40. See Heide, ‘Copyright, Contract and the Legal Protection of Technological Measures’, op. cit., p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See Hart, ‘The Copyright in the Information Society Directive’, op. cit., p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dusollier, Droit d’auteur, op. cit., p. 431, who referred to the provision of Article 5(3)(o) as the “grand-father clause”.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Hugenholtz, ‘Why the Copyright Directive is Unimportant’, op. cit., p. 500.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibidem.

    Google Scholar 

  45. See Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres dans l’univers numérique, op. cit., p. 175, who outlined that the Directive does not compel copyright owners to facilitate access to the benefit of exceptions.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See Vinje, ‘Should We Begin Digging Copyright’s Grave?’, op. cit., p. 557; and Hart, ‘The Copyright in the Information Society Directive’, op. cit., p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See Gasser and Girsberger, ‘Transposing the Copyright Directive’, op. cit., p. 10; and Braun, ‘The Interface Between the Protection of Technological Measures and the Exercise of Exceptions to Copyright’, op. cit., p. 500.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See Commentaires du Legal Advisory Board sur la Communication de la Commission du 20 Novembre 1996, paragraph 9A, available (in French) at: http://europa.eu.int/ ISPO/legal/fr/proprint/labcomment.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Commentaires du Legal Advisory Board, paragraph 9A.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See Commentaires du Legal Advisory Board, paragraph 7B.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See Commentaires du Legal Advisory Board, paragraph 7A.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See Vinje, ‘Should We Begin Digging Copyright’s Grave?’, op. cit., p. 557.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibidem.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibidem.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Heide, ‘Copyright, Contract and the Legal Protection of Technological Measures’, op. cit., 16.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibidem.

    Google Scholar 

  57. See Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Federal Register, Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, vol. 65, 31 October 2000, Rules and regulations, p. 64556; vol. 68, 31 October 2003, Rules and regulations, p. 62011; vol. 71, 27 November 2006, Rules and regulations, p. 68472, available at: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/index.html.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, cit.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibidem.

    Google Scholar 

  60. See Helberger and Groenenboom, ‘Digital Rights Management and Consumer Acceptability, Legal Aspect’, p. 17, downloaded at: http://www.indicare.org.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See Law 2006-961 of 1 August 2006 on copyright and related rights in the information society, adopted text N.596, Official Journal of the French Republic, 3 August 2006, available at: http://www.assembleenationale.fr/12/ta/ta0596.asp. Article 17 of this new law established an independent administrative body (Autorité de régulation des mesures techniques) which is required to ensure the effective enforcement of copyright exceptions notwithstanding the operation of technological protection measures.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See the First Additional Provision (Disposiciòn adicional primera) of Law N.23/2006 of 7 July 2006, which amended the Intellectual Property Act enacted by Royal Legislative Decree N.1/1996, of 12 April 1996. The text of the new law is available at: http://www.boe.es (Boletìn Oficial del Estado).

    Google Scholar 

  63. See Gasser and Girsberger, ‘Transposing the Copyright Directive’, op. cit., p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See Gasser and Girsberger, ‘Transposing the Copyright Directive’, op. cit., pp. 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2008). The legal treatment of copyright exceptions under secondary EU law. In: EU Digital Copyright Law and the End-User. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75985-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation