Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From Abuse of Right to European Copyright Misuse: A New Doctrine for EU Copyright Law

  • Article
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The great expansion of EU copyright law has paved the way for several rightholders’ abusive or dysfunctional conducts, without providing adequate solutions to prevent or remedy them. The answer from EU sources is characterized by extreme fragmentation, with tools mostly borrowed from external bodies of law. Paradoxically, the doctrine of abuse of right has long been neglected as a potential solution, mainly due to its flaws – difficult evidence-taking and weak remedies – and its incompatibility with the discretionary nature of continental authors’ rights. Yet, the notion emerges between the lines of several ECJ decisions and finds its way from civil codes to copyright in a number of national courts’ precedents. Due to the paradigm shift towards a market-oriented and industry-based inspiration, EU copyright seems now to be open to admitting the possibility of misuse. Starting from these premises, this article argues that a unitary doctrine of copyright misuse may constitute an effective balancing tool for most of the dysfunctional conducts that copyright law and other bodies of law are still unable to resolve. In addition, it may also act as a regulatory paradigm to ensure greater certainty and transparency in the judicial development of key principles and rules of EU copyright law. To this end, this paper (a) proposes a four-prong test of abusiveness, incorporating criteria of proportionality and reasonableness inspired by the normative function(s) of exclusive rights; and (b) offers new perspectives on potential remedies and on the positive impact of the doctrine on the systematization of the current legislative framework.

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. See infra, paragraph 3.

  2. For the purposes of this study the term “EU copyright” refers to exclusive rights categorized as authors’ rights and neighboring rights, unless it is differently specified. The issues concerning copyright collective management will not be discussed.

  3. Inter alia see Geiger (2013), Hilty (2015).

  4. See Strowel and Kim (2012), 121 ff.

  5. See Keeling (2004), p. 54; Oliver (2003), p. 315 ff.

  6. Westkamp (2014), p. 41.

  7. Cf also Godt (2014), p. 213.

  8. See Joined Cases C-92/92 and C-326/92, Phil Collins v. Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH e Patricia Im-und Export Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH e Leif Emanuel Kraul v. EMI Electrola GmbH [1993] ECR I-05145, para. 21.

  9. Case C-78/70 Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft mbH v. Metro-SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG.Deutsche Grammophon v. Metro SB [1971] ECR 487, para. 11.

  10. On the development of the doctrine see Schovsbo (2012), p. 174 ff.; Ubertazzi (2014).

  11. Deutsche Grammophon, paras. 12–13. Similarly, Joined Cases 55/80 and 57/80 Musik-Vertrieb Membran and K-tel International v. GEMA [1981] ECR 147.

  12. Case C-62/79, SA Compagnie générale pour la diffusion de la télévision, Coditel, and others v. Ciné Vog Films and others [1980] ECR 881.

  13. Case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp [2012] OJ C 287, pp. 10–11.

  14. UsedSoft, para. 45 and 63.

  15. Joined Cases C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v. QC Leisure and Others, and C-429/08 Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd (FAPL) [2011] ECR I-09083, para. 116.

  16. FAPL, para. 108.

  17. Joined Cases C-241/91P and C-242/91P, Radio Telefis Eirean (RTE) and Independent Television Publication Ltd (ITP) v. Commission [1995] ECR I-743.

  18. Case C-418/01 IMS Health GmbH & Co OHG v. NDC Health GmbH & C. KG [2004] ECR I-503, [2004] 4 CMLR 1543.

  19. Magill, para. 96.

  20. See Drexl (2013), pp. 41 and 77.

  21. See also Ghidini (2010), p. 224.

  22. On the harmonization process see Van Eechoud (2009), Hugenholtz (2013).

  23. See recital 31 of Directive 2001/29/CE.

  24. On the unbalanced features of EU copyright see Ghidini (2013).

  25. On this topic see Ginsburg (2002), p. 61. See also Nérisson (2012), p. 129 ff.

  26. See, inter alia, Reichman (1994), Falce (2012), p. 1 ss.

  27. Ghidini (2001) p. 15.

  28. Suffice it to mention the entitlement to exercise all the exclusive rights in favor of the employers (unless otherwise provided by contract) provided by Art. 2.3 of Directive 2009/24/EC and by Recital 29 of Directive 96/9/EC. See also Art. 2.5 of Directive 2006/115/EC.

  29. The large scope of some exclusive rights is underlined by Dusollier (2005), p. 201. This control is also enabled by technological protection measures, see infra.

  30. See recital 32 of InfoSoc Directive.

  31. Member States and national courts generally do not consider exceptions and limitations as subjective rights. For an overview see Hilty and Nérisson (2012a), (b).

  32. Only few Member States (e.g. Belgium and Portugal) declare exceptions mandatory. See Guibault (2002).

  33. See Art. 5.5 InfoSoc Directive.

  34. For a comparative overview see Hugenholtz and Senftleben (2011), p. 18 ff. See also case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (Infopaq) [2009] ECR-06569, para. 58; FAPL, supra note 15, para. 91.

  35. See Infopaq, supra note 34, para. 56.

  36. On this issue see Geiger and Schönherr (2014), p. 440.

  37. German courts, for instance, ruled that the use of some available images online could be justified on the existence of an implied license given by the right holder. See German Federal Supreme Court, I ZR 69/08 Vorschaubilder, 29 April 2010; and German Federal Supreme Court, I ZR 140/10 Vorschaubilder II, 19 October 2011. On this topic see Pihlajarinne (2012).

  38. Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo), 3 April 2012, No.172/2012.

  39. Case C-466/12, Svensson v. Retriever Sverige AB [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:76. For a comment cf Arezzo (2014).

  40. As an example, for an overview on claims against news aggregators and search engines see Scalzini (2015).

  41. See in general on this issue Griffiths and L. McDonagh (2013); Godt (2014).

  42. Case C-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others [2011], ECR I-12533, para. 133.

  43. Painer, paras. 134–135.

  44. Case C-275/06 Productores de Música de España v. Telefónica de España SAU [2008] ECR I-271.

  45. Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL [2011] ECR I-11959.

  46. Case C-360/10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Netlog NV [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:85.

  47. Case C-461/10 Bonnier Audio AB et al. v. Perfect Communication Sweden AB [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:219.

  48. For an overview on the impact of EU fundamental rights on IP, see Ohly, 2013.

  49. On this aspect see, e.g., Anagnostaras (2014), p. 111.

  50. On this topic see Geiger (2009).

  51. It is indeed limited only to reinforce the limitation already enshrined in the Charter. See infra, para. 3.

  52. See infra, para. 3.

  53. See Recital 10 of IPRED.

  54. See Hilty (2015), p. 390. The safeguards are also indicated in some recitals of the Directive (2, 12, 14).

  55. See Stamatoudi (2014), p. 528 ff.

  56. See European Consumer Law Group (2005), p. 9.

  57. On this topic see Caso (2004), passim; and for a focus on the effects of such unbalances on the national implementation of the InfoSoc Directive, see Favale (2008)

  58. See also De Werra (2003), p. 326.

  59. See, in particular, Heide (2003), p. 2; Dusollier (2005), p. 202 ff.

  60. On this issue see in particular Guibault (2002).

  61. On the interplay between copyright law and consumer law see in particular, Guibault (2017).

  62. On this topic see Mazziotti (2008), Stazi (2012).

  63. See Arts. 5(1)(g) and (h) and 6(1)(r) and (s).

  64. Unless the Member State clearly excludes the possibility for a rightholder to authorize and charged the reproduction. See Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi v. Nokia Danmark A/S [2015], not yet published, para. 63.

  65. This problem has been raised by Guibault (2017).

  66. Articles 8 and 40.2 TRIPS, authorizing Member States to take measures to prevent and remedy abuses, especially in case of anti-competitive licensing practices; and Art. 41, targeting the abusive recourse to enforcement procedures. Yet, the text does not provide any definition of abuse or specification on the “appropriate measures” that can be implemented in response. Cf. Hilty (2015), p. 384. See also Ullrich (2004); Drexl (2014), p. 282 ff.; Bakhoum and Conde Gallego (2016), p. 548 ff.

  67. Carre (2012), p. 315. Cf. also Caron (1998), pp. 16–18, Lucas and Lucas (2006), p. 349, p. 428, referring to the social dimension of moral rights post-mortem.

  68. Hilty and Nerisson (2012a, b), p. 65.

  69. Id. at 21, mentioning examples from Croatia (Art. 98 Copyright Act), Germany (Sec. 95b) and Belgium (Art.79bis(4)). See Gilha 2012, 333, Dreier and Specht (2012), 442, Vanbrabant and Strowel (2012), 119.

  70. Cf. Trampuž (2012), p. 869.

  71. For a comparative analysis of the doctrine and its emersion in national experiences see Perillo (1995); Voyame et al. (1990); Sajò (2006), p. 29 ff.; Gambaro (1995); Bolgàr (1975); Byers (2002), p. 392 ff.

  72. Sica and D’Antonio (2012), 541. No cases have been reported so far.

  73. Broadly Guibault (2002), 281 ff.

  74. Mizaras (2012), p. 644.

  75. This is particularly the case for the exercise of moral rights in software and databases (Art. 14(3) Copyright Act). Similarly in the French CPI, Art. L. 111.3(2).

  76. Supra note 70.

  77. For the references to the Belgian Civil Code see Vanbrabant and Strowel (2012), p. 154. See Brussels Civil Court, 4 March 2009, IRDI, 2009, p. 197.

  78. Brussels Civil Court, 5 January 1996, IRDI, 1996, p. 97.

  79. Commercial Court Brussels, 26 May 1993, RDC., 1994, p. 651.

  80. Brussels Civil Court, 27 February 1998, A&M, 1998, p. 143, confirmed by Brussels Court of Appeal, 18 September 1998, ibidem.

  81. Brussels Civil Court, 27 October 1999, unpublished, in Buydens (2001), p. 434, note 44, focusing on the purpose of copyright law.

  82. Brussels Civil Court, 10 October 1997, DAOR 1998, p. 64; Brussels Court of Appeal, 28 January 1997, A&M, 1997, p. 262.

  83. Jena CA, MMR 2008, 408 [413]. For a comment see Dreier and Specht (2012), p. 437 ff.

  84. In Supreme Court, 20 October 1995, NJ 1996, 682, §3.10.

  85. As in Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 26 July 2001, BR 2002, 536; Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, 17 March 1999, BR 2000, 71; Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, 17 March 1999, BR 2000, 71; Pres. Rb. Leeuwarden, 29 November 1994, BR 1995, 443; Rb. Assen, 17 November 1992, AMI 1993, 191; Rb. Middelburg, 28 August 1992, KG 1992, 307.

  86. The rule is present in Belgium as well (for reasons of safety, hygiene or fitness (Brussels Civil Court), 22 January 1997, A&M, 1997, p. 391). See also Buydens (2001), p. 429 ff.

  87. Multimember Athens Court of First Instance, No. 2028/2003; One-Member Court of First Instance of Athens, No. 276/2001; Multimember Thessaloniki Court of First Instance No. 13300/2004.

  88. One-Member Athens Court of First Instance No. 36247/1999. Cf. Kallinikou (2012), p. 469.

  89. Court of Cassation, No. 1009/2007.

  90. Supreme Court, 1st Civil Division, 14 May 1991, 89-21.701, 151 RIDA 1992, pp. 273 ff.

  91. Caron (1998), p. 20.

  92. Supreme Court, Commercial Division, 26 November 2003, 00-22.605, Bulletin 2003 IV, No. 178, p. 195.

  93. Id., at 197.

  94. Ibidem.

  95. See supra note 38. See the comment of Xalabarder (2012), p. 162 ff.

  96. Id., fund. 5, ruling #8.

  97. Cf. Caron (1998), pp. 10–14.

  98. With regard to the terminological selection and the differences between international, EU and US sources see Hilty (2015), p. 380.

  99. See supra notes 32–36 and related text. In favor of a use of the test as constraint see Lucas (2010); Cohen Jehoram (2005).

  100. On the weakness of consumer protection in the digital environment see CSECL-IViR-ACLE (2001, particularly pp. 275 ff).

  101. The most relevant is German Federal Supreme Court NJW-RR 2009, 1047 [1049].

  102. As in the database case Supreme Court, Commercial Division, 4 December 2001, Bulletin 2001, IV, no. 193 p. 185. See also Carre (2012), pp. 342–343.

  103. Cf. the overview of legislation and case law provided by Xalabarder (2012), pp. 972–973.

  104. Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act. See Gravenhage Court of Appeal, 30 January 2000, AMI 2000, p. 73; Administrative High Court for Trade and Industry, 8 January 2003, LJN AF2794. Cf. Guibault and van ‘t Klooster (2012), pp. 714 ff.

  105. In fact, the UK Copyright Act contains a direct reference to competition law (Sec. 144).

  106. Attheraces Ltd v. British Horseracing Board Ltd [2007] ECC 7 (CA). See also Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd [2008] FSR 33, and Football Association Premier League Ltd v. QC Leisure [2008] FSR 22.

  107. Deutsche Grammophon, supra note 9.

  108. Id., para. 13.

  109. Albeit criticized by commentators as underdeveloped, cryptic, valueless or wrong. See the literature review by Ramalho (2016), pp. 68 ff.

  110. Case C-262/81 Coditel v. CinéVog Films II (Coditel II) [1982] ECR 3381.

  111. Coditel I, supra note 12, paras. 13 and 14.

  112. Case C-200/96, Metronome Musik GmbH v. Music Point Hokamp GmbH [1998] ECR I-1953, referring to Musik-VertriebMembran, supra note 11, paras. 10 and 15, and Case C-58/80 Dansk Supermarked v. Imerco [1981] ECR 181, para. 11.

  113. Metronome, para. 22.

  114. Id., para. 24.

  115. Case 158/86 Warner Brothers and Another v. Christiansen [1988] ECR 2605, para. 13.

  116. In this sense see Phil Collins, supra note 8, para. 20, Musik-Vertieb Membrane, para. 12, and FAPL, supra note 15, para. 107.

  117. FAPL, para. 108. The same language is used by UsedSoft, supra note 13, para. 63.

  118. Warner Brothers, paras. 15–16, and Metronome Musik, para. 16.

  119. This may be defined as a consolidated principle, clearly expressed in FAPL, para. 94; Coditel I, paras. 15–16; Musik-VertriebMembran, paras. 9 and 12; Phil Collins, para. 20; Case C-115/02 Rioglass and Transremar [2003] ECR I-12705, para. 23 and the case law cited; Case C-222/07 UTECA [2009] ECR I-1407, para. 25 and the case law cited.

  120. The approach dates back in time. See case C-24/67, Parke Davis v. Probel [1968] ECR 55; Deutsche Grammophon, para. 16; case C-247/86 Alsatel v. Novasam [1988] ECR 5987, para. 20.

  121. The first attempts to define such exceptional factors very much copycatted the content of Art. 82 EC. Case C-238/87, AB Volvo v. Erik Veng [1988] ECR 6211; case C-53/87, CICCRA and Maxicar v. Renault [1988] ECR 6039. See also Schmidt (2002), p. 214.

  122. Id., paras. 54–56.

  123. IMS Health, supra note 18, anticipated by Case T-504/93, Tierce Ladbroke SA v. Commission, [1997] ECR II-923, and Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner GmbH & C. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG & Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co KG [1998] ECR 7791. Cf. Derclaye (2003) and her ample bibliography.

  124. Broadly on the point Guibault (1997), p. 11, and Rowland and Campbell (2002), p. 24 ff.

  125. UsedSoft, supra note 13.

  126. Id., paras. 62–63, following Metronome Musik, para. 14; case C-61/97 FDV [1998] ECR I-5171, para. 13, and FAPL, para. 106.

  127. Broadly on the point Guibault (1997), p. 11, and Rowland and Campbell (2002), pp. 24 ff.

  128. Article I, Sec. 8, cl.8.

  129. The reference makes its first appearance in Recital 9 InfoSoc, and is later reiterated, inter alia, by Recital 21 IPRED, Recital 11 of the Term Directive (2006/116/EU), and Recital 14 of the Orphan Works Directive (OWD, 2012/28/EU).

  130. In these terms Peukert (2011).

  131. OWD, Recital 5.

  132. Recently reaffirmed by the Commission’s Communication “Towards a modern, more European copyright framework”, COM (2015) 626 final, p. 2.

  133. InfoSoc, Recital 11.

  134. IPRED, Recital 2.

  135. Term Directive, Recital 11.

  136. Software I Directive (91/250/EEC), Recital 2; Database Directive (96/9/EEC), Recitals 9, 11–13; Rental I Directive (92/100/EEC), Recital 8; Term Directive, Recital 11; Resale Directive (2001/84/EC), Recitals 3, 11, 13; InfoSoc, Recitals 2 and 4; IPRED, Recital 1.

  137. Explicitly defined in this terms by the Commission’s Communication “The management of copyright and related rights in the internal market”, COM (2004) 261 final, p. 6.

  138. IPRED, Recital 2.

  139. OWD, Recital 20.

  140. InfoSoc, Recitals 12 and 14; CMO, Recital 3; OWD, Recitals 18 and 23.

  141. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market – COM (2016) 593 final.

  142. This happens despite its resemblance to an equitable instrument. See, in this sense, Hilty (2015), p. 380.

  143. Strowel (2008), pp. 296–298.

  144. See, e.g., Geiger (2007), p. 63, who argues that using fundamental rights as balancing tools brings the advantage of providing a hierarchy of rights and values, which is missing in the doctrine of abuse of right.

  145. In the national scholarships, an example comes from Benabou (2002), pp. 83–84.

  146. For a definition of objective right and the implications of the theory for copyright exceptions and limitations see Guibault (2002), p. 269. On the general theory see Gervais (1961), pp. 246–247.

  147. On the role of the proportionality principle in this context see Strowel (2008); Van Gerven (1992), p. 305.

  148. See Sayde (2014), pp. 167–214.

  149. On the interpretative problems created by Art. 17.2 ECFR see, ex multis, Griffiths and McDonagh (2013), Geiger (2009). Similarly, with regards to the case law of the ECtHR on the application of Art. 1 of the First Protocol ECHR to intellectual property, see Helfer (2008), pp. 11 ff.

  150. As in the 11th Recital of the InfoSoc Directive.

  151. Case C-110/99, Emsland Starke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Honas, [2000] ECR I-11569, paras. 52–54.

  152. See supra note 64.

  153. See Case C-467/08 Padawan v. SGAE, [2010] ECR I-55.

  154. The presence of TPMs may influence the amount set as a levy by Member States, as also stated in Copydan, supra note 64.

  155. Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms on consumer contracts.

  156. As it may happen, for instance, in the case of a contractual restriction of the reproduction of works for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship or research. See Guibault (2002), p. 265. This is a theoretical hypothesis that does not take into account the reluctance of courts in such interventions on copyright contracts. On the horizontal application of fundamental rights see, inter alia, Mak (2008), Brueggemeier et al. (2010).

References

  • Anagnostaras G (2014) Balancing conflicting fundamental rights: the Sky Osterreich paradigm. ELR 39(1):111–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Arezzo E (2014) Hyperlinks and making available right in the European Union—what future for the internet after Svensson? IIC 5:524–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhoum M, Conde Gallego M (2016) TRIPS and competition rules: from transfer of technology to innovation policy. In: Ullrich H et al (eds) TRIPS plus 20: from trade rules to market principles. Springer, Berlin, pp 529–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Benabou VL (2002) Puiser à la source du droit d’auteur. RIDA 192:2–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolgàr V (1975) Abuse of rights in France, Germany and Switzerland: a Survey of a recent chapter in legal doctrine. La LR 35:1015–1036

    Google Scholar 

  • Brueggemeier G, Colombi Ciacchi A, Comandé G (eds) (2010) Fundamental rights and private law in the European Union. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Buydens M (2001) La nouvelle directive du 22 mai 2001 sur l’harmonisation de certains aspects du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins dans la société de l’information: le régime des exceptions. Auteurs Media 429–444

  • Byers M (2002) Abuse of right: an old principle, a new age. McGill LJ 47:389–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Caron C (1998) Abuse de droit et droit d’auteur. Une illustration de la confrontation du droit spécial et du droit commun en droit civil francais. RIDA 4:2–81

  • Carre S (2012) France, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 387–429

  • Caso R (2004) Digital rights management. Il commercio delle informazioni digitali tra contratto e diritto d’autore. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen Jehoram H (2005) Restrictions on copyright and their abuse. EIPR 6:277–282

  • CSECL-IViR-ACLE (2001) Final report. and development of recommendations for possible future rules on digital content contracts, Amsterdam. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/legal_report_final_30_august_2011.pdf. Accessed 24 Jul 2016

  • De Werra J (2003) Moving beyond the conflict between freedom of contract and copyright policies. Colum JL Arts 25:239–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye E (2003) Abuses of dominant position and intellectual property rights: a suggestion to reconcile the Community courts case law. World Compet 26(4):685–705

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier T, Specht L (2012) Germany, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 431–456

  • Drexl J (2013) Copyright, competition and development, report to the World Intellectual Property Organization. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/copyright_competition_development.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2016

  • Drexl J (2014) Intellectual property and implementation of recent bilateral trade agreements in the EU. In: Drexl J, Grosse Ruse-Khan H, Nadde-Phlix S (eds) EU bilateral trade agreements and intellectual property: for better or worse?. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–292

  • Dusollier S (2005) Technology as an imperative for regulating copyright: from the public exploitation to the private use of the work. EIPR 6:201–204

    Google Scholar 

  • European Consumer Law Group (2005) Copyright law and consumer protection ECLG/035/05 (Policy conclusions of the ECLG based on a study carried-out by Dr. Lucie Guibault and Ms Natali Helberger). http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/324. Accessed 23 May 2017

  • Falce V (2012) La Modernizzazione del Diritto d’autore, 2nd edn. Giappichelli, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Favale M (2008) Fine-tuning European copyright law to strike a balance between the rights of owners and users. Eur Law Rev 33:687–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambaro A (1995) Abuse of rights in civil law tradition. ERPL 4:561–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2007) Droit d’auteur et liberté de création artistique: un fragile équilibre. Libres propos à propos de l’arrêt Victor Hugo de la Cour de cassation du 30 janvier 2007. Revue Lamy Droit de l’immatériel 26:59–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2009) Intellectual Property shall be protected!?’ – Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: a mysterious provision with an unclear scope. EIPR 31(3):113–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2013) The social function of intellectual property rights, or how ethics can influence the shape and use of IP law. In: Dinwoodie GB (ed) Methods and perspectives in intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 153–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C, Schönherr F (2014) The Information Society Directive (article 5 and 6(4)). In: Torremans P, Stamatoudi I (eds) EU copyright law: a commentary. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 434–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais A (1961) Quelques réflexions à propos de la distinction des “droits” et des “intérêts”. In: Cornu G et al (eds) Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Roubier, II. Dalloz, Paris, pp 246–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini G (2001) Profili evolutivi del diritto industriale: proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini G (2010) Innovation, competition and consumer welfare in intellectual property law. Edward Elgar, Chentelham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini G (2013) Exclusion and access in copyright law: the unbalanced features of the European Directive « On Information Society » (Infosoc)? Riv Dir Ind 1:5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg JC (2002) How copyright got a bad name for itself. Columbia J Law Arts 26(1):61

    Google Scholar 

  • Godt C (2014) Intellectual property and European fundamental rights. In: Micklitz H-W (ed) Constitutionalization of European private law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 210–235

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths J, McDonagh L (2013) Fundamental rights and European IP law: The case of Art 17(2) of the EU Charter. In: Geiger C (ed) Constructing European intellectual property achievements and new perspectives. Edward Elgar, Chelteham UK and Northampton MA, pp 75–93

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guibault L (1997) Contracts and copyright exemptions, IVIR, Amsterdam

  • Guibault L (2002) Copyright limitations and contracts: an analysis of the contractual overridability of limitations on copyright. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibault L (2017) Individual licensing models and consumer protection. In: Hilty RM, Liu KC (eds) Exploring sensible ways for paying copyright owners?. Springer, Berlin, pp 207–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibault L, van ‘t Klooster (2012) Netherlands, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 677–717

  • Heide TP (2003) Copyright, contract and the legal protection of technological measures—Not ‘the old fashioned way’: providing a rationale to the ‘copyright exceptions interface’. J Copyr Soc USA 50:315

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L (2008) The New Innovation Frontier? Intellectual Property and the European Court of Human Rights. Harvard Int’l LJw J 49:1–52

  • Hilty RM (2015) Legal remedies against abuse, misuse and other forms of inappropriate conduct of IP right holders. In: Hilty RM, Kung-Chung L (eds) Compulsory licensing: practical experiences and ways forward. Springer, Berlin, pp 377–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) (2012) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin

  • Hilty RM, Nérisson S (2012) Overview, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–78

  • Hugenholtz B (2013) Is harmonization a good thing? The case of the copyright acquis In: A. Ohly and J. Pila (eds) The Europeanization of intellectual property law: towards a European legal methodology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 57–73

  • Hugenholtz PB, Senftleben M (2011) Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2013239. Accessed 25 Jul 2016

  • Kallinikou D (2012) Greece, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 575–473

  • Keeling DT (2004) Intellectual property rights in EU Law: volume I free movement and competition law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas A (2010) For a reasonable interpretation of the three-step test, EIPR 6:277–282

  • Lucas A, Lucas HJ (2006) Traité de la propriété litteraire et artistique, 2eme edn. Litec, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak C (2008) Fundamental rights in European private law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazziotti G (2008) EU digital copyright law and the end-user. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizaras V (2012) Lithuania, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 623–644

  • Nérisson S (2012) Ownership of copyright and investment protection rights in teams and networks: need for new rules? In: Rosén J (ed) Individualism and collectiveness in intellectual property law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 128–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver PJ (2003) Free movements of goods in European community. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Perillo JM (1995) Abuse of rights: a pervasive legal concept. Pac. LJ 27:37–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert A (2011) Intellectual property as an end in itself? EIPR 33(2):67–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Pihlajarinne T (2012) Setting the limits for the implied license in copyright and linking discourse—the European perspective. IIC 43:700

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramalho A (2016) The competence of the European Union in copyright lawmaking. A Normative perspective of EU powers of copyright harmonization. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reichman JR (1994) Legal hybrids between the patent and copyright paradigms. CLR 94:2432–2558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland D, Campbell A (2002) Supply of software: copyright and contract issues. Int J Law Inf Technol 10:24–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Sajò A (2006) Abuse of fundamental rights or the difficulties of purposiveness. In: Sajò A (ed) Abuse: the dark side of fundamental rights. Eleven International Publishing, The Netherlands, pp 29–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayde A (2014) Abuse of EU law and regulation of the internal market. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalzini S (2015) Is there free-riding? A comparative analysis of the problem of protecting publishing materials online in Europe. JIPLP 10:454–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt (2002) Article 82’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ that restrict intellectual property rights. ECLR 23(5):210–216

  • Schovsbo J (2012) The exhaustion of rights and common principles of European intellectual property law. In: Ohly A (ed) Common principles of European intellectual property law. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 174–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Sica S, D’Antonio V (2012) Italy, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 541–567

  • Stamatoudi I (2014) The Enforcement Directive. In: Torremans P, Stamatoudi I (eds) EU copyright law: a commentary. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 528–652

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stazi A (2012) Digital copyright and consumer/user protection: moving towards a new framework? QMJIP 2:158–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strowel A (2008) De «l’abus de droit» au principe de «proportionnalité» : un changement de style. In: Van Drooghenbroeck S, Tulkens F (eds) Liber Amicorum M. Mahieu. Larcier, Bruxelles, pp 293–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Strowel A, Kim HE (2012) The balancing impact of general EU law on European intellectual property jurisprudence. In: Pila J, Ohly A (eds) The Europeanization of intellectual property law: towards a European legal methodology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 121–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Trampuz (2012) Slovenia, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 869–889

  • Ubertazzi B (2014) The principle of free movement of goods: community exhaustion and parallel imports. In: Torremans P, Stamatoudi I (eds) EU copyright law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 38–51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ullrich H (2004) Expansionist intellectual property protection and reductionist competition rules: a TRIPS Perspective. J Int Ec Law 7:401–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eechoud M (2009) Harmonizing European copyright law. The challenges of better lawmaking. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gerven W (1992) Principe de proportionnalité, abus de droit et droit fondamentaux. JT 305–309

  • Vanbrabant B, Strowel A (2012) Belgium, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–161

  • Voyame et al (1990) Abuse of right in comparative law. In: Colloquy on European law, abuse of rights and equivalent concepts, Council of Europe, Luxembourg, pp 23–57

  • Westkamp G (2012) Emerging escape clause? Online exhaustion, consent and European copyright law. In: Rosen J (ed) Intellectual property at the crossroad of trade. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 38–66

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Xalabarder R (2012) Spanish supreme court rules in favour of Google search engine … and a flexible reading of copyright statutes? JIPITEC 2:162–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Xalabarder R (2012) Spain, In: Hilty RM, Nérisson S (eds) Balancing copyright—a survey of national approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 925–975

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Studies, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

    Caterina Sganga (LL.M, Ph.D.; Assistant Professor)

  2. Department of Law, LUISS – Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli, Rome, Italy

    Silvia Scalzini (Ph.D.; Post-Doctoral Research Fellow)

Authors
  1. Caterina Sganga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvia Scalzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caterina Sganga.

Additional information

Caterina Sganga authored the Introduction, Parts 3 and 4, and the Conclusions. Silvia Scalzini authored Part 2 (she developed the main part of the work during her Postdoc fellowship at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy). The paper reflects the shared views of the authors. The authors wish to thank Professor Francesco Donato Busnelli and the participants in the panel “Internationalisation of Laws” at the 11th Annual Conference of the European Policy for Intellectual Property Association (EPIP) held in Oxford on 3 September 2016 for their useful insights and comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sganga, C., Scalzini, S. From Abuse of Right to European Copyright Misuse: A New Doctrine for EU Copyright Law. IIC 48, 405–435 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0584-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0584-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation