Skip to main content

Neighbouring Rights for Publishers: Are National and (Possible) EU Initiatives Lawful?

Abstract

To tackle the financial difficulties facing the newspaper industry, different solutions have been advanced in Europe. These have resulted in either the conclusion of consensual agreements or the adoption of national legislative initiatives to create sui generis rights over news content. Currently also the EU Commission is considering whether a neighbouring right for publishers – whether in the press sector alone or also other sectors – should be proposed for adoption at the EU level. This contribution discusses: (1) the compatibility with EU law of national legislative initiatives that have resulted in the creation of sui generis rights for press publishers; and (2) whether a neighbouring right for publishers may be adopted at the EU level and, if so, what changes of the copyright acquis are required. It concludes that, while the former may be contrary to Member States’ obligations under EU law, the latter may be pursued by amending relevant Directives.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Price (2015), p. 3.

  2. 2.

    Barthel (2015).

  3. 3.

    Madsen and Andsager (2012).

  4. 4.

    Calin et al. (2013).

  5. 5.

    See contra Chiou and Tucker (2015), Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (2014) (CNMC), §III.1.

  6. 6.

    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 neighbouring rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 10–19.

  7. 7.

    Directive 2006/115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental and lending right and on certain rights neighbouring to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified version), OJ L 376, 28–35.

  8. 8.

    Nils Svensson and Others v. Retriever Sverige AB, C-466/12, EU:C:2014:76.

  9. 9.

    Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v. Reprobel SCRL, C-572/13, EU:C:2015:750.

  10. 10.

    C More Entertainment AB v. Linus Sandberg, C-279/13, EU:C:2015:199.

  11. 11.

    Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others, C-145/10, EU:C:2011:798.

  12. 12.

    Barabash (2013), p. 244.

  13. 13.

    On the latter see Scalzini (2015), pp. 461–463.

  14. 14.

    Rosati (2012).

  15. 15.

    Schmidt (2013).

  16. 16.

    Geerts (2012).

  17. 17.

    La Stampa (2016).

  18. 18.

    ANSA (2016).

  19. 19.

    Rabenstein (2013).

  20. 20.

    Lardinois (2013).

  21. 21.

    Bundeskartellamt (2015).

  22. 22.

    Gingras (2014).

  23. 23.

    InfoSoc Directive, Recital 15.

  24. 24.

    Commission of the European Communities, Green Paper on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in the Information Society, COM(95) 382 final.

  25. 25.

    Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission: Follow-Up to the Green Paper on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in the Information Society, COM(96) 568 final.

  26. 26.

    Hugenholtz (2000), p. 500.

  27. 27.

    InfoSoc Directive, Recital 6.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, Recital 7.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, Recital 6.

  30. 30.

    Ibid, Recital 7.

  31. 31.

    DR and TV2 Danmark A/S v. NCB – Nordisk Copyright Bureau, C-510/10, EU:C:2012:244, [35], referring to Laserdisken ApS v. Kulturministeriet, C-479/04, EU:C:2006:549, [26] and [31]–[34].

  32. 32.

    InfoSoc Directive, Recital 24.

  33. 33.

    Rosati (2014).

  34. 34.

    Nils Svensson and Others v. Retriever Sverige AB, cit, [16], referring to ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v. TV Catch Up Ltd, C-607/11, EU:C:2013:147, [21] and [31].

  35. 35.

    Ibid, [17]. On this point see also – more recently – OSA - Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním os v. Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně as, C-351/12, EU:C:2014:110, [23]; Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v. Ministério Público and Others, C-151/15, EU:C:2015:468, [12]; SBS Belgium NV v. Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM), C-325/14, EU:C:2015:764, [14].

  36. 36.

    Nils Svensson and Others v. Retriever Sverige AB, cit., [18].

  37. 37.

    Ibid, [20].

  38. 38.

    Ibid, [21], referring to Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v. Rafael Hoteles SA, C-306/05, EU:C:2006:764, [37, 38]; and ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v. TV Catch Up Ltd, cit, [32].

  39. 39.

    Ibid, [24], referring by analogy to Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v. Rafael Hoteles SA, cit, [40] and [42]; Organismos Sillogikis Diacheirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon, C-136/09, EU:C:2010:151, [38]; and ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v. TV Catch Up Ltd, cit, [39].

  40. 40.

    Ibid, [25].

  41. 41.

    Ibid, [26].

  42. 42.

    Ibid, [27].

  43. 43.

    BestWater International GmbH v. Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch, C-348/13, EU:C:2014:2315.

  44. 44.

    GS Media BV v. Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc and Britt Geertruida Dekker, C-160/15 (in progress).

  45. 45.

    Nils Svensson and Others v. Retriever Sverige AB, cit, [34].

  46. 46.

    Ibid, [35].

  47. 47.

    Ibid, [36].

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    InfoSoc Directive, particularly Recitals 1 and 7.

  50. 50.

    Ibid, Recital 7.

  51. 51.

    C More Entertainment AB v. Linus Sandberg, cit, [25].

  52. 52.

    Ibid, [27].

  53. 53.

    Ibid, [29].

  54. 54.

    Ibid, [30].

  55. 55.

    Ibid, [31].

  56. 56.

    Ibid, [33].

  57. 57.

    In this sense, Lewinski (2010a, b), §6.8.2.

  58. 58.

    C More Entertainment AB v. Linus Sandberg, cit., [35].

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    Opinion of Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón in Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v. Reprobel SCRL, C-572/13, EU:C:2015:389, [127].

  61. 61.

    Ibid, [124].

  62. 62.

    Ibid, [125].

  63. 63.

    Ibid, [126].

  64. 64.

    Amazon.com International Sales Inc. and Others v. Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH, C-521/11, EU:C:2013:515, [49, 50] and [53].

  65. 65.

    Opinion of Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón in Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v. Reprobel SCRL, cit., [128].

  66. 66.

    Ibid, [130].

  67. 67.

    Ibid, [140].

  68. 68.

    European Copyright Society (2015).

  69. 69.

    Ibid, 4.

  70. 70.

    See Question 1 at http://www.publishersright.eu/.

  71. 71.

    Huss-Ekerhult (2015), p. 1.

  72. 72.

    Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v. Reprobel SCRL, cit, [47].

  73. 73.

    Ibid, [48].

  74. 74.

    Ibid, [49].

  75. 75.

    Schütze (2012), p. 364.

  76. 76.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version 2012), OJ C 326, 47–200.

  77. 77.

    Craig and de Búrca (2015), pp. 84–85.

  78. 78.

    Ibid, Protocol (No 25) on the exercise of shared competence.

  79. 79.

    InfoSoc Directive, Recital 6.

  80. 80.

    Ibid, Recital 7.

  81. 81.

    In relation to exclusive rights, see e.g. Martin Luksan v. Petrus van der Let, C-277/10, EU:C:2012:65, particularly [64]; Football Dataco Ltd and Others v. Yahoo! UK Ltd and Others, C-604/10, EU:C:2012:115, particularly [52] (both discussed further in Rosati (2014), pp. 589–590).

  82. 82.

    Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v. QC Leisure and Others, C-403/08); and Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd, C-429/08, EU:C:2011:631.

  83. 83.

    Ibid, [96].

  84. 84.

    Ibid, [97, 98].

  85. 85.

    Ibid, [99].

  86. 86.

    Ibid, [100].

  87. 87.

    Vesterdorf (2015), pp. 265–267.

  88. 88.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A digital single market strategy for Europe, COM (2015) p. 192 final.

  89. 89.

    Ibid, p. 2.

  90. 90.

    Ibid, pp. 3–4.

  91. 91.

    European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Towards a modern, more European copyright framework, COM (2015) p. 626 final.

  92. 92.

    Gummer and Robinson (2014).

  93. 93.

    Ibid, p. 10.

  94. 94.

    European Commission – Fact sheet, Making EU copyright rules fit for the digital age – questions and answers (9 December 2015), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6262_en.htm.

  95. 95.

    European Commission, Public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain and on the ‘panorama exception’ (23 March 2016 – 15 June 2016), available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/public-consultation-role-publishers-copyright-value-chain-and-panorama-exception.

  96. 96.

    Ibid.

  97. 97.

    Boyd (2015).

  98. 98.

    These are the European Publishers Council (http://www.epceurope.eu), the European Newspapers Publishers Association (http://www.enpa.eu), the European Magazine Media Association (http://www.magazinemedia.eu), and News Media Europe (http://www.newsmediaeurope.eu): see http://www.publishersright.eu/.

  99. 99.

    Ibid, Question 2.

  100. 100.

    Ibid, Question 3.

  101. 101.

    Hugenholtz (2016).

  102. 102.

    Xalabarder (2014).

  103. 103.

    Computer and Communications Industry Association (2015).

  104. 104.

    See Ricketson (1999), 64, who speaks of “reasonably generous boundaries” in relation to the scope of Art. 10(1) of the Berne Convention.

  105. 105.

    See, e.g. Cohen Jeroham (2005), p. 360; Lewinski (2008), §5.163; Goldstein and Hugenholtz (2013), p. 391.

  106. 106.

    Xalabarder (2014), p. 2.

  107. 107.

    Martin Luksan v. Petrus van der Let, cit.

  108. 108.

    Ibid, [64].

  109. 109.

    Lewinski (2008), §5.163.

  110. 110.

    Ficsor (2002), §5.11.

  111. 111.

    Goldstein and Hugenholtz (2013), p. 392.

  112. 112.

    In the same sense, see Lewinski (2010a, b), §11.5.58: “Making a ‘quotation’ implies the requirement of using a part of another person’s work or even, where excerpting is not possible, an entire work (such as a photograph or short poem), for the purpose of illustrating or proving a proposition neighbouring to the quoted work”.

  113. 113.

    Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others, cit, [119].

  114. 114.

    Ibid, [127].

  115. 115.

    Ibid, [134].

  116. 116.

    Ibid, [135].

  117. 117.

    Ibid, [120] (emphasis added).

  118. 118.

    Ibid, [131].

  119. 119.

    Ibid, [136].

  120. 120.

    Article L-122-5(3)(a) of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle states that quotations are allowed insofar as they clearly indicate the name of the author and the source, and are justified for by the critical, polemic, educational, scientific or information of the work in which they are incorporated. According to Benabou (2012), p. 148, the CJEU decision in Painer has de facto abolished the rule that a quotation must be attached to another work or subject-matter. In the same sense, see Derclaye (2014), p. 718.

  121. 121.

    Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v. Helena Vandersteen and Others, C-201/13, EU:C:2014:2132, [20].

  122. 122.

    Opinion of Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón in Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v. Helena Vandersteen and Others, C-201/13, EU:C:2014:458, [57].

  123. 123.

    Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v. Helena Vandersteen and Others, cit, [21].

  124. 124.

    Ibid.

  125. 125.

    Opinion of Advocate General Melchior Wathelet in GS Media BV v. Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc and Britt Geertruida Dekker, C-160/15, EU:C:2016:221, [77].

References

  1. ANSA (2016). FIEG-Google deal to boost media sector. Available at http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2016/06/07/fieg-google-deal-to-boost-media-sector-2_f68fd7ae-7002-43bf-97ad-08088724fa4b.html

  2. Barabash I (2013) Ancillary copyright for publishers: the end of search engines and news aggregators in Germany? EIPR 35(5):243

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barthel M (2015) Newspapers: fact sheet—state of the news media 2015. Available at http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/newspapers-fact-sheet/. Accessed 20 April 2016

  4. Benabou V (2012) Retour sur dix ans de jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne en matière de propriété littéraire et artistique. Propriétés Intellectuelles 43:140

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boyd J (2015) Ancillary copyright: group of press publishers write letter to the European Commission. International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations. Available at http://ifrro.org/content/ancillary-copyright-group-press-publishers-write-letter-european-commission. Accessed 20 April 2016

  6. Bundeskartellamt (2015) Bundeskartellamt takes decision in ancillary copyright dispute. Available at http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2015/09_09_2015_VG_Media_Google.html?nn=3591568. Accessed 20 April 2016

  7. Calin M, Dellarocas C, Palme E, Sutanto J (2013) Attention allocation in information-rich environments: the case of news aggregators. Boston U School of Management Research Paper No 2013–4. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2225359. Accessed 20 April 2016

  8. Chiou L, Tucker C (2015), Content aggregation by platforms: the case of news media. NBER Working Paper No 21404. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w21404.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2016

  9. Cohen Jeroham H (2005) Restrictions on copyright and their abuse. EIPR 27(10):359

    Google Scholar 

  10. Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (2014) (CNMC), Pro/Cnmc/0002/14 Propuesta Referente A La Modificación Del Artículo 32.2 Del Proyecto De Ley Que Modifica El Texto Refundido De La Ley De Propiedad Intelectual

  11. Computer and Communications Industry Association (2015) CCIA White Paper—understanding ‘ancillary copyright’ in the global intellectual property environment (2015). Available at http://cdn.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CCIA-Understanding-Ancillary-Copyright.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2016

  12. Craig P, de Búrca G (2015) EU law—text, cases and materials, 6th edn

  13. Derclaye E (2014) The Court of Justice copyright case law: quo vadis? EIPR 36(11):716

    Google Scholar 

  14. European Copyright Society (2015) Opinion on the reference to the CJEU in Case C-572/13 Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v. Reprobel SCRL. Available at https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/opinion-in-case-c572_13-hp-belgium-reprobel-2015.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2016

  15. Ficsor M (2002) The law of copyright and the Internet: the 1996 WIPO Treaties, their interpretation and implementation

  16. Geerts T (2012) Partnering with Belgian news publishers. Google Europe Blog. Available at http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/partnering-with-belgian-news-publishers.html. Accessed 20 April 2016

  17. Gingras R (2014) An update on Google News in Spain. Google Europe Blog. Available at http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/an-update-on-google-news-in-spain.html. Accessed 20 April 2016

  18. Goldstein P, Hugenholtz B (2013) International copyright. Principles, law, and practice, 3rd edn

  19. Gummer C, Robinson F (2014) New EU digital chief floats tough anti-Google regulations. The Wall Street Journal. Available at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/30/new-eu-digital-chief-floats-tough-anti-google-regulations/. Accessed 20 April 2016

  20. Hugenholtz PB (2000) Why the Copyright Directive is unimportant, and possibly invalid. EIPR 22(11):499, 500

  21. Hugenholtz B (2016) Say nay to the neighbouring right!’ Kluwer Copyright Blog. Available at http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2016/04/14/say-nay-to-the-neighbouring-right/. Accessed 20 April 2016

  22. Huss-Ekerhult A (2015), IFRRO Comments regarding the European Copyright Society’s Opinion on Case C-572/13, Hewlett-Packard Belgium v. Reprobel. Available at http://ifrro.org/sites/default/files/ifrro_response_to_european_copyright_society_opinion_29sept2015.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2016

  23. La Stampa (2016) Fieg e Google firmano un accordo per collaborare. La Stampa. Available at http://www.lastampa.it/2016/06/07/economia/fieg-e-google-firmano-un-accordo-per-collaborare-6xl7WBCgb6TPCEFKcUfwLK/pagina.html

  24. Lardinois F (2013) Google makes Google News in Germany opt-in only to avoid paying fees under new copyright law. TechCrunch. Available at http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/21/google-makes-google-news-in-germany-opt-in-only-to-avoid-paying-fees-under-new-copyright-law/. Accessed 20 April 2016

  25. Lewinski S (2008) International copyright law and policy

  26. Lewinski S (2010a) Information Society Directive. In: Lewinski S, Walter MM (eds) European copyright law—a commentary

  27. Lewinski S (2010b) Rental and Lending Rights Directive. in

  28. Madsen P, Andsager J (2012) Aggregating agendas: online news aggregators as agenda setters. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and mass communication annual conference. Available at http://www.mapor.org/confdocs/absandpaps/2011/2011_papers/1a1Madsen.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2016

  29. Price G (2015) Opportunities and challenges for journalism in the digital age: Asian and European perspectives. Chatham House—The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Available at http://www.asef.org/images/docs/Final%20Chatham%20House%20Monograph-ERT7-20150825.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2016

  30. Rabenstein G (2013) Google News bleibt offene Plattform für alle deutschen Verlage. Der offizielle Google Produkt-Blog. Available at http://google-produkte.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/google-news-bleibt-offene-plattform-fuer-verlage.html. Accessed 20 April 2016

  31. Ricketson S (1999) The boundaries of copyright: its proper limitations and exceptions: international conventions and treaties. IPQ 1:56

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rosati E (2012) French minister of culture speaks of Google, Amazon and Loi Hadopi. The 1709 Blog. Available at http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/french-minister-of-culture-speaks-of.html. Accessed 20 April 2016

  33. Rosati E (2014) Copyright in the EU: in search of (in)flexibilities. JIPLP 9(7):585

    Google Scholar 

  34. Scalzini S (2015) Is there free-riding? A comparative analysis of the problem of protecting publishing materials in Europe. JIPLP 10(6):454, 461–463

  35. Schmidt E (2013) Google creates €60 m Digital Publishing Innovation Fund to support transformative French digital publishing initiatives. Google Official Blog. Available at https://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/google-creates-60m-digital-publishing.html. Accessed 20 April 2016

  36. Schütze R (2012) European constitutional law

  37. Vesterdorf B (2015) The effect of failure to notify the Spanish and German ancillary copyright laws. EIPR 37(5):263

    Google Scholar 

  38. Xalabarder R (2014) The remunerated statutory limitation for news aggregation and search engines proposed by the Spanish government—its compliance with international and EU law. IN3 Working Paper Series. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2504596&download=yes. Accessed 20 April 2016

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleonora Rosati.

Additional information

I am grateful to Cédric Manara (Google) and Lionel Bently (University of Cambridge) for their comments on an earlier draft, as well as the anonymous peer-reviewers of the International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. Errors and omissions remain my own.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosati, E. Neighbouring Rights for Publishers: Are National and (Possible) EU Initiatives Lawful?. IIC 47, 569–594 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0495-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ancillary copyright
  • Ancillary rights
  • Copyright
  • Digital Single Market Strategy
  • Directive 2001/29
  • Directive 2006/115
  • EU Commission
  • Neighbouring rights
  • News aggregators