Limitations and Exceptions as Key Elements of the Legal Framework for Copyright in the European Union – Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the Judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn

  • Christophe Geiger
  • Jonathan Griffiths
  • Martin Senftleben
  • Lionel Bently
  • Raquel Xalabarder
Opinion

Abstract

In this opinion, the European Copyright Society (ECS) puts on record its views on the issues raised by the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-201/13, Deckmyn, which departs from the doctrine of strict interpretation of exceptions and limitations in cases in which fundamental rights such as freedom of expression are involved. The opinion welcomes this development for the following reasons: firstly, due to the importance of exceptions and limitations in facilitating creativity and securing a fair balance between the protection of and access to copyright works; secondly, because of the Court’s determination to secure a harmonized interpretation of the meaning of exceptions and limitations; thirdly, because of the Court’s adoption of an approach to the interpretation of exceptions and limitations which promotes their effectiveness and purpose; and, finally, due to the Court’s recognition of the role of fundamental rights in the copyright system: in particular, its recognition that the parodic use of works is justified by the right to freedom of expression. At the same time, the ECS recommends caution in constraining the scope of exceptions and limitations in a manner that may go beyond what might be considered necessary in a democratic society.

Keywords

Copyright law Limitations and exceptions Fundamental rights Freedom of expression Deckmyn 

References

  1. Band J, Gerafi J (2014) The fair use/fair dealing handbook. (Policybandwidth, March 2013). http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/band-and-gerafi-2013.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2014
  2. Bechtold S (2006) Information Society Dir., art. 5. In: Dreier T, Hugenholtz PB (eds) Concise European copyright law, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 369Google Scholar
  3. Benkler Y (1999) Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraints on enclosure of the public domain. N Y Univ Law Rev 74(2):355Google Scholar
  4. Geiger C, Schönherr F (2014) Limitations to copyright in the digital age. In: Savin A, Trzaskowski J (eds) Research handbook on EU internet law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 110Google Scholar
  5. 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 (ed) Codification of European copyright law, challenges and perspectives, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 142Google Scholar
  6. Geiger C (2006) “Constitutionalising” intellectual property law? The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in the European Union. IIC 37(4):371Google Scholar
  7. Geiger C, Izyumenko E (2014) Copyright on the human rights’ trial: redefining the boundaries of exclusivity through freedom of expression. IIC 45(3):316Google Scholar
  8. Geiger C, Gervais DJ, Senftleben M (2014) The three-step-test revisited: how to use the test’s flexibility in national copyright law. 29(3) American University International Law Review 581. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2356619 or  10.2139/ssrn.2356619. Accessed 26 Sept 2014
  9. Griffiths J, Suthersanen U (eds) (2005) Copyright and free speech. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Guibault L (2006) Why cherry-picking never leads to harmonisation: the case of the limitations on copyright under directive 2001/29/EC. JIPITEC 1:57Google Scholar
  11. Hargreaves I (2011) Digital opportunity: a review of intellectual property and growth, United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office 44–52. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreviewfinalreport.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2014
  12. Hilty RM (2004) Copyright in the internal market, harmonisation vs. community copyright law. IIC 35(7):760Google Scholar
  13. Hugenholtz PB (2000) Why the copyright directive is un-important, and possibly invalid. EIPR 22(11):501Google Scholar
  14. Hugenholtz PB (2002) Copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. In: Elkin-Koren N, Netanel NW (eds) The commodification of information. Kluwer, The Hague, p 239Google Scholar
  15. Hugenholtz PB, Senftleben M (2014) Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities. Amsterdam Law School Research paper no. 2012-39; Institute for Information Law Research paper no. 2012-33. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2013239 or  10.2139/ssrn.2013239. Accessed 26 Sept 2014
  16. Janssens M.-C. (2009) The issue of exceptions: reshaping the keys to the gates in the territory of literary, musical and artistic creation. In: Derclaye E (ed) Research handbook on the future of EU copyright, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 317Google Scholar
  17. Macciacchini S (2000) Urheberrecht und Meinungsfreiheit. Stämpfli, BernGoogle Scholar
  18. Netanel NW (1996) Copyright and a democratic civil society. Yale Law J 106:283Google Scholar
  19. Senftleben M (2014) Comparative approaches to fair use: an important impulse for reforms in EU copyright law. In: Dinwoodie GB (ed) Methods and perspectives in intellectual property, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2241284. Accessed 26 Sept 2014
  20. Strowel A, Tulkens F (eds) (2006) Droit d’auteur et liberté d’expression. Editions Larcier, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. van Eechoud M et al (2009) Harmonizing European copyright law, the challenges of better lawmaking, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophe Geiger
    • 1
  • Jonathan Griffiths
    • 2
  • Martin Senftleben
    • 3
  • Lionel Bently
    • 4
  • Raquel Xalabarder
    • 5
  1. 1.University of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Queen Mary, University of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Kooijmans Institute for Law and GovernanceVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Centre of Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL)University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  5. 5.Universitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations