Advertisement

Copyright on the Human Rights’ Trial: Redefining the Boundaries of Exclusivity Through Freedom of Expression

  • Christophe GeigerEmail author
  • Elena Izyumenko
Article

Abstract

Courts have traditionally considered copyright to be immune to any external freedom of expression review, the tension between those rights having to be resolved through internal balancing mechanisms such as the idea/expression dichotomy or limitations and exceptions to the exclusive right. Two important rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered in 2013 clearly challenge this premise. One is the judgment against France in the Ashby Donald case, the other an admissibility decision in the Swedish “Pirate Bay” application. Both rulings held that the use of a copyrighted work can be considered as an exercise of the right to freedom of expression, even if the use qualifies as an infringement and is profit-motivated. The Court, by verifying if in the given situation the interference can be justified with regard to other conflicting rights, accepts the idea that the compatibility of any copyright enforcement measure with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that no predetermined answer can be given by copyright law. Thus, it can be expected that freedom of expression might be used in the future by courts to redefine the boundaries of exclusivity. Taking this recent case law of the ECtHR as a starting point, this article examines what guidelines should be applied by the judiciary when having to solve the conflict between copyright and freedom of expression in a particular case.

Keywords

European Court of Human Rights Copyright law Freedom of expression Public interest Ashby Donald The Pirate Bay” 

References

  1. Aittouares J (2008) Le défilé de mode, oeuvre de l’esprit. RLDI (37):9Google Scholar
  2. Akester P (2006) The political dimension of the digital challenge—copyright and free speech restrictions in the digital age. IPQ 1:16Google Scholar
  3. Angelopoulos CJ (2008) Freedom of expression and copyright: the double balancing act. IPQ 3:328Google Scholar
  4. Antons C, Adeney E (2013) The Germania 3 decision translated: the quotation exception before the German Constitutional Court. EIPR 35(11):646Google Scholar
  5. Beiter KD (2008) The right to property and the protection of interests in intellectual property—a human rights perspective on the European Court of Human Right’s decision in Anheuser-Bush Inc v Portugal. IIC 39(6):714Google Scholar
  6. Birnhack M (2004) Copyrighting speech: a Trans-Atlantic view. In: Torremans P (ed) Copyright and human rights: freedom of expression, intellectual property, privacy. Kluwer Law International, p 37Google Scholar
  7. Brauch JA (2004/2005) The margin of appreciation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: threat to the rule of law. Columbia J Eur Law 11:13Google Scholar
  8. Burrell R, Gangjee D (2010) Trade marks and freedom of expression: a call for caution. IIC 41(5):544Google Scholar
  9. Calliess C (2007) The fundamental right to property. In: Ehlers D (ed) European fundamental rights and freedoms. De Gruyter, Berlin, p 448Google Scholar
  10. Carrier MA (2004) Cabining intellectual property through a property paradigm. Duke Law J 54(1):1Google Scholar
  11. Cohen Jehoram H (2004) Copyright and freedom of expression, abuse of rights and standard chicanery: American and Dutch approaches. EIPR 26(7):275Google Scholar
  12. Craig CJ (2011) Copyright, communication and culture: towards a relational theory of copyright law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derclaye E (2008) French Supreme Court rules fashion shows protected by copyright—what about the UK? JIPLP 3(5):286Google Scholar
  14. Dietz A (1995) The moral right of the author: moral rights and the civil law countries. Colum VLA J L Arts 19:199Google Scholar
  15. Dinwoodie GB (2008) Copyright and free expression: engine or obstacle. In: Allada (ed) Copyright and freedom of expression: proceedings of the ALAI study days, p 253Google Scholar
  16. Ducoulombier P (2008) Conflicts between fundamental rights and the European Court of Human Rights: an overview. In: Brems E (ed) Conflicts between fundamental rights. Intersentia, Oxford, p 217Google Scholar
  17. Ducoulombier P (2014) Interaction between human rights: are all human rights equal? Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  18. Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2008) Global intellectual property law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  19. Edelman B (2000) Du mauvais usage des droits de l’homme. Recueil Dalloz (29):455Google Scholar
  20. Edström J, Nillson H (2009) The Pirate Bay verdict—predictable, and yet… EIPR 31(9):483Google Scholar
  21. Estlund CL (1990) Speech on matters of public concern: the perils of an emerging First Amendment category. George Washington Law Review 59:1Google Scholar
  22. Geiger C (2004a) Pour une plus grande flexibilité dans le maniement des exceptions au droit d’auteur. Auteurs & Média (3):213Google Scholar
  23. Geiger C (2004b) Fundamental rights, a safeguard for the coherence of intellectual property law? IIC 35(3):268Google Scholar
  24. Geiger C (2004c) Droit d’auteur et droit du public à l’information, approche de droit comparé. Litec, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Geiger C (2004d) Quotation right and fundamental rights. IIC 35:716Google Scholar
  26. Geiger C (2006) “Constitutionalizing” intellectual property law? The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in Europe. IIC 37(4):371Google Scholar
  27. Geiger C (2007a) Author’s right, copyright and the public’s right to information: a complex relationship. In: Macmillan F (ed) New directions in copyright law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 24Google Scholar
  28. Geiger C (2007b) Copyright and the freedom to create: a fragile balance. IIC 38(6):707Google Scholar
  29. Geiger C (2009a) Copyright’s fundamental rights dimension at EU level. In: Derclaye E (ed) Research handbook on the future of EU copyright. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 27Google Scholar
  30. Geiger C (2009b) 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):113Google Scholar
  31. Geiger C (2010a) Intellectual “property” after the Treaty of Lisbon, towards a different approach in the new European legal order? EIPR 32(6):255Google Scholar
  32. Geiger C (2010b) The future of copyright in Europe: striking a fair balance between protection and access to information. IPQ 1:1Google Scholar
  33. Geiger C (2012a) Fundamental rights as common principles of European (and International) intellectual property law. In: Ohly A (ed) Common principles of European intellectual property law. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, p 223Google Scholar
  34. Geiger C (2012b) “Humanising” the intellectual property system—securing a fair balance of interests through fundamental rights at European and International level. The Quarterly Review of Corporation Law and Society (Waseda University) 33:291Google Scholar
  35. Geiger C (2013a) L’utilisation jurisprudentielle des droits fondamentaux en Europe en matière de propriété intellectuelle: Quel apport? Quelles perspectives? In: Geiger C (ed) La contribution de la jurisprudence à la construction de la propriété intellectuelle en Europe. Collection du CEIPI/Litec, Paris, p 193Google Scholar
  36. Geiger C (2013b) Intellectual property and constitutional law in the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon: time to revise art. 17 (2). Paper presented at the 32nd Annual ATRIP Congress on the topic “Is Intellectual Property a Lex Specialis?”, University of Oxford (UK), 25 June 2013Google Scholar
  37. Geiger C (2014a) Implementing intellectual property provisions in human rights instruments: towards a new social contract for the protection of intangibles. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  38. Geiger C (2014b) The social function of intellectual property rights, or how ethics can influence the shape and use of IP law. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 13-06. In: Dinwoodie GB (ed) Intellectual property law: methods and perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 153Google Scholar
  39. Geiger C, Schönherr F (2012) Defining the scope of protection of copyright in the EU: the need to reconsider the acquis regarding limitations and exceptions. In: Synodinou T-E (ed) Codification of European copyright law, challenges and perspectives. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 133Google Scholar
  40. Goldstein P (1970) Copyright and the First Amendment. Columbia Law Review 70:983Google Scholar
  41. Greer S (1997) The exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights files, No. 15. Council of Europe PublishingGoogle Scholar
  42. Greer S (2000) The margin of appreciation: interpretation and discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights files, No. 17. Council of Europe PublishingGoogle Scholar
  43. Griffiths J (2002a) Copyright law and the public’s right to receive information: recent developments in an isolated community. In: Barendt E, Firth A (eds) The yearbook of copyright and media law 2001/2. OUP, Oxford, p 29Google Scholar
  44. Griffiths J (2002b) Copyright law after Ashdown: time to deal fairly with the public. IPQ 6:240Google Scholar
  45. Griffiths J, McDonagh L (2013) Fundamental rights and European intellectual property law—the case of art 17(2) of the EU Charter. In: Geiger C (ed) Constructing European intellectual property: achievements and new perspectives. EIPIN series, vol 1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 75Google Scholar
  46. Griffiths J, Suthersanen U (eds) (2005) Copyright and free speech. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2014) Overlaps and conflict norms in human rights law: approaches of European courts to address intersections with intellectual property rights. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  48. Harris DJ, O’Boyle M, Warbrick C, Bates E (2009) Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: law of the European Convention on Human Rights. 2nd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Helfer LR (1993) Consensus, coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights. Cornell Int Law J 26:133Google Scholar
  50. Helfer LR (2008) The new innovation frontier? Intellectual property and the European Court of Human Rights. Harv Int Law J 49:1Google Scholar
  51. Hugenholtz PB (2001) Copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. In: Dreyfuss RC et al. (eds) Expanding the boundaries of intellectual property, p 343Google Scholar
  52. Hugenholtz PB, Senftleben M (2011) Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  53. Janis MW, Kay RS, Bradley AW (2008) European human rights law: text and materials. 3rd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Jones J (2013) Internet pirates walk the plank with Article 10 kept at bay: Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v Sweden. EIPR 35(11):695Google Scholar
  55. Krzeminska-Vamvaka J (2008) Freedom of commercial speech in Europe. Hamburg: Verlag Dr Kovac, Studien zum Völker- und Europarecht 58:292Google Scholar
  56. Kulk S (2012) Filtering for copyright enforcement in Europe after the Sabam cases. EIPR 34(11):791Google Scholar
  57. Kur A, Dreier T (2013) European intellectual property law: text, cases and materials. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  58. Lucas A (2005) Droit d’auteur, liberté d’expression et “droit du public à l’information”. Auteurs & Média (1):13Google Scholar
  59. MacMillan Patfield F (1996) Towards a reconciliation of free speech and copyright. In: Barendt E (ed) The yearbook of media and entertainment law 1996. OUP, Oxford, p 199Google Scholar
  60. Macovei M (2001) Freedom of expression: a guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights handbooks, No. 2. Council of Europe PublishingGoogle Scholar
  61. Mallet-Poujol N (2002) Le double langage du droit à l’information. Recueil Dalloz (31):2420Google Scholar
  62. Mendel T (2008) Freedom of information: a comparative legal survey. UNESCO: Paris, 2nd editionGoogle Scholar
  63. Mendel T (2011) Restricting freedom of expression: standards and principles. Background paper for meeting hosted by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. Centre for Law and DemocracyGoogle Scholar
  64. Munro CR (2003) The value of commercial speech. Cambridge Law Journal 62(1):134Google Scholar
  65. Mylly T (2014) The constitutionalization of the European legal order: impact of human rights on intellectual property in the EU. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  66. Oetheimer M (ed) (2007) Freedom of expression in Europe. Case-law concerning Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights files, No. 18. Council of Europe PublishingGoogle Scholar
  67. Patterson LR (1987) Free speech, copyright and fair use. Vanderbilt Law Rev 40(1):1Google Scholar
  68. Peukert A (2011) Intellectual property as an end in itself? EIPR 33(2):67Google Scholar
  69. Peukert A (2014) The fundamental right to (intellectual) property and the discretion of the legislature. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  70. Plogell M, Ullberg E (2009) SE-Sweden: The Pirate Bay case. Legal observations of the European audiovisual observatory. IRIS 6(29):1Google Scholar
  71. Plogell M, Ullberg E (2011) SE-Sweden: The Pirate Bay appeal. IRIS 2(37):1Google Scholar
  72. Reiss JW (2011) Commercializing human rights: trademarks in Europe after Anheuser-Busch v Portugal. J World Intellect Prop 14(2):176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosen J (2008) Copyright and freedom of expression in Sweden—private law in a constitutional context. In: Torremans P (ed) Copyright law: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 355Google Scholar
  74. Senftleben M (2004) Copyright, limitations and the three-step test: an analysis of the three-step test in International and EC copyright law. Kluwer Law International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Strowel A, Tulkens F (eds) (2006) Droit d’auteur et liberté d’expression. Larcier, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  76. Sundberg FGE (1987) The European experience of human rights proceedings: the precedential value of the European Court’s decisions. Akron Law Rev 20:629Google Scholar
  77. Suthersanen U (2008) Copyright as an engine of free speech: an English perspective. In: Copyright and freedom of expression: proceedings of the ALAI study days. Huygens Editorial, p 167Google Scholar
  78. Voorhoof D (1995) Het Europese “First Amendment”: de vrijheid van expressie en informatie en de rechtspraak van het EHRM betreffende art. 10 EVRM (1994-1995). Mediaforum (Amsterdam) :11Google Scholar
  79. Voorhoof D (2002) Freedom of expression, parody, copyright and trademarks. In: Ginsburg JC, Besek JM (eds) Adjuncts and alternatives to copyright. ALAI 2001/Kernochan Center for Law Media and the Arts, New York, p 636Google Scholar
  80. Voorhoof D (2014) Freedom of expression and the right to information: implications for copyright. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  81. Welkowitz DS (2013) Pivatazing human rights? Creating intellectual property rights from human rights principles. Akron Law Rev 46:675Google Scholar
  82. Yan M (2012) The law surrounding the facilitation of online copyright infringement. EIPR 34(2):122Google Scholar
  83. Yu P (2007) Ten common questions about intellectual property and human rights. Georgia State University Law Review 23:709Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.StrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.StrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations