Advertisement

European Copyright Inside or Outside the European Union: Pluralism of Copyright Laws and the “Herderian Paradox”

  • Andreas RahmatianEmail author
Article

Abstract

The agenda of the EU includes the harmonisation or unification of laws of its Member States for promoting the common market, improving free movement of goods, free movement of capital, free movement of services, and free movement of people. This also applies to copyright law. However, harmonisation or unification of laws through legislation or CJEU decisions does not necessarily further European integration. In the light of recent political and social events, a movement towards further harmonisation, also in copyright law, could even be detrimental to the European cause. This article argues that the more one pursues integration, harmonisation and unification of national laws across Europe, the more one may endanger the fabric and framework of a union of European states. Further legal unification prompts a tendency of the EU Member States to move away from one another. Increased unity causes further diversity, and a certain level of diversity effects unity. This dialectical process can be called the “Herderian paradox”, inspired by the philosophical history of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) which is outlined in this article. Some of the problematic areas of copyright harmonisation that illustrate the dangers of the “Herderian paradox” are discussed: the concept of copyright work, the interpretation of originality, the role of moral rights, exceptions and limitations, and, as a possible but dangerous remedy to overcome difficulties of harmonisation, EU law pre-emption and intergovernmental treaties outside EU law.

Keywords

EU copyright Originality Moral rights Exceptions and limitations EU law pre-emption Herder 

References

  1. Armstrong KA (2013) The new governance of EU fiscal discipline. Eur Law Rev 38(5):601–617Google Scholar
  2. Becker B (1987) Herder-Rezeption in Deutschland. Röhrig Verlag, St. Ingbert, pp 79–90Google Scholar
  3. Bently L (2012) Case comment: the return of industrial copyright? EIPR 34(10):654–672Google Scholar
  4. Bently L, Sherman B (2014) Intellectual property law, 4th edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 59–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlin I (2000) Herder and the Enlightenment. In: Berlin I, Hardy H (eds) Three critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder. Pimlico, London, pp 168–242Google Scholar
  6. Bollacher M (1989) In: Herder JG (ed) Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, Frankfurt, pp 901–937Google Scholar
  7. Bower S, Watt N (2014) Luxembourg tax files: Juncker ‘solved problems’ for Amazon move, The Guardian, 10 December 2014Google Scholar
  8. Cohen Jehoram H (2001) European copyright law-ever more horizontal. IIC 32(5):532–545Google Scholar
  9. Cook T, Derclaye E (2011) An EU copyright code; what and how, if ever? IPQ 3:259–269Google Scholar
  10. Cornish WR (1989) Moral rights under the 1988 Act. EIPR 11(12):449–452Google Scholar
  11. De Witte B (2015) Euro crisis responses and the EU legal order: increased institutional variation or constitutional mutation? Eur Const Law Rev 11(3):434–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Derclaye E (2010) Case comment: Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08): wonderful or worrisome? The impact of the ECJ ruling in Infopaq on UK copyright law. EIPR 32(5):247–251Google Scholar
  13. Derclaye E (2014) The Court of Justice copyright case law: quo vadis? EIPR 36(11):716–732Google Scholar
  14. Dinwoodie GB (2009) Developing a private international intellectual property law: the demise of territoriality? W & Mary L Rev 51:711–800Google Scholar
  15. Dreier T (2015) Thoughts on revising the limitations on copyright under Directive 2001/29. JIPLP 11(2):138–146Google Scholar
  16. Elster A (1933) Deutsche Rechtsgedanken im Urheberrecht. In: De Boor HO, Elster A et al (eds) Archiv für Urheber- Film und Theaterrecht, vol 6. J. Springer, Berlin, pp 189–207Google Scholar
  17. Evans-Pritchard A (2015) Greece is being treated like a hostile occupied state. The Telegraph, 13 July 2015 Google Scholar
  18. Fischer J (2015) Fatale Entscheidung für ein deutsches Europa, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 26 July 2015Google Scholar
  19. Fitzpatrick S (2003) Prospects of further copyright harmonisation? EIPR 25(5):215–223Google Scholar
  20. Follesdal A, Hix S (2006) Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU. J Common Mark Stud 44(3):533–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fung B (2016) The British are frantically Googling what the EU is, hours after voting to leave it. The Washington Post, 24 June 2016 Google Scholar
  22. Geiger C, Schönherr F (2014a) The Information Society Directive, Art. 5. In: Stamatoudi I, Torremans P (eds) EU Copyright Law. A commentary. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 434–484Google Scholar
  23. Geiger C, Schönherr F (2014b) The information society directive. In: Stamatoudi I, Torremans P (eds) EU Copyright Law. A commentary. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geiger C, Gervais D, Senftleben M (2013–2014) The three-step test revisited: how to use the test’s flexibility in national Copyright. Am Univ Int Law Rev 29:581–626Google Scholar
  25. Geiger C et al (2015) The Resolution of the European Parliament of July 9, 2015: paving the way (finally) for a copyright reform in the European Union? EIPR 37(11):683–701Google Scholar
  26. Goethe JWV (1982) Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen. In: Werke. Hamburger Ausgabe, vol 13, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, pp 64–101 Google Scholar
  27. Herder JG (1989) Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. In: Bollacher M (ed). Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  28. Herder JG (2012) Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menschheit. In: Irmscher H-D (ed). Reclam, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  29. Hesselink M (2012) The case for a common European sales law in an age of rising nationalism. Eur Rev Contract Law 8(3):342–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofmann C (2012) Stabilizing the financial sector: EU financial services 2010–2012. Eur Rev Contract Law 8(4):426–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hugenholtz B (2000) Why the Copyright Directive is unimportant, and possibly invalid. EIPR 22(11):499–505Google Scholar
  32. Hume D (2003) Of national characters. In: Hume D, Haakonssen K (eds) Political essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–92Google Scholar
  33. Juncker J-C (2016) European solidarity in a world of crises. Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/. Accessed 8 Apr 2016
  34. Krugman P (2015a) Austerity and the Greek depression. New York Times, 10 July 2015 Google Scholar
  35. Krugman P (2015b) Killing the European project, New York Times, Opinion Pages, 12 July 2015Google Scholar
  36. Legrand P (1997) Against a European Civil Code. Mod Law Rev 60:44–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legrand P (2003) The same and the different. In: Legrand P, Munday R (eds) Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions. CUP, Cambridge, pp 240–311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loewenheim U (2010) Einleitung. in: Schricker G, Loewenheim U (eds) Urheberrecht. Kommentar. C.H. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  39. Montesquieu C (1977) The Spirit of Laws, book 19, chap. 18. In: Carrithers DW (ed). University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  40. Norton RE (2007) The myth of the counter-Enlightenment. J Hist Ideas 68(4):635–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plomer A (2015) A unitary patent for a disunited Europe: the long shadow of history. IIC 46(5):508–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rahmatian A (2007) Friedrich Carl v. Savigny’s Beruf and Volksgeistlehre. J Legal Hist 28:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rahmatian A (2011) Intellectual property and the concept of dematerialised property. In: Bright S (ed) Modern studies in property law, vol 6. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 361–383Google Scholar
  44. Rahmatian A (2013) Originality in UK copyright law: the old “skill and labour” doctrine under pressure. IIC 44:4–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rahmatian A (2015) Lord Kames: legal and social theorist. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramalho A (2014) Conceptualising the European Union’s competence in copyright —what can the EU do? IIC 45(2):178–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rankin J (2016) Council of Europe condemns EU’s refugee deal with Turkey. The Guardian, 20 April 2016Google Scholar
  48. Rayner G (2016) How Boris Johnson was brought to his knees by the ‘cuckoo nest plot’. The Telegraph, 1 July 2016 Google Scholar
  49. Rehbinder M (2010) Urheberrecht, 16th edn, C.H. Beck, Munich Google Scholar
  50. Rosati E (2010a) The Wittem Group and the European Copyright Code. JIPLP 5(12):862–868Google Scholar
  51. Rosati E (2010b) Originality in US and UK copyright experiences as a springboard for an EU-wide reform debate. IIC 41(5):524–543Google Scholar
  52. Rosati E (2013) Towards an EU-wide copyright? (Judicial) pride and (legislative) prejudice. (2013) IPQ 47–68Google Scholar
  53. Rosati E (2014) Copyright in the EU: in search of (in)flexibilities. JIPLP 9(7):585–598Google Scholar
  54. Schulze G (2013) In: Th. Dreier and G. Schulze, Urheberrechtsgesetz. Kommentar, 4th edn. (Munich: C. H. Beck), Sec. 72 No. 2, p. 1157Google Scholar
  55. Schütze R (2012) European Constitutional Law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Seville C (2011) Intellectual property. Int Comp Law Q 60(4):1039–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Silverman I (2013) Copyright and fashion: friends at last? EIPR 35(11):637–645Google Scholar
  58. Sinn HW (2011) Greek tragedy. http://www.cesifo-group.de/. Accessed 8 Apr 2016
  59. Southern RW (1970) Western society and the church in the middle ages. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Sterling JAL (2002) International codification of copyright law: possibilities and imperatives. IIC 33(3):270–293Google Scholar
  61. Strowel A (1993) Droit d’auteur et copyright. Émile Bruylant, Librairie generale de droit et de jurisprudence, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  62. Strowel A (2014) Towards a European copyright law: four issues to consider. In: Stamatoudi I, Torremans P (eds) EU Copyright Law. A commentary. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1127–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor R (2009) Against an integrated intellectual property code: a response to “Reforming intellectual property law: an obvious and not-so-obvious agenda. IPQ 3:281–287Google Scholar
  64. The Wittem Group (2011) European Copyright Code. EIPR 33(2):76–82Google Scholar
  65. Traynor I (2015) Greece crisis talks: the July weekend that saved the euro but broke the EU? 13 July 2015Google Scholar
  66. Traynor I, Rankin J (2015) Greek Debt Crisis: Tsipras resists key bailout measures after 15 h of talks, both in The Guardian, 13 July 2015Google Scholar
  67. Uken M (2015) Alles fu¨r den Euro, Die Zeit (online), 13 July 2015Google Scholar
  68. Ulmer E (1960) Urheber- und Verlagsrecht, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vivant M, Bruguière J-M (2013) Droit d’auteur et droits voisins, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  70. Weaver M, Asthana A (2016) Vote leave attacks IFS thinktank over Brexit austerity prediction. The Guardian, 25 May 2016 Google Scholar
  71. Whittaker S (2009) A framework for European contract law? Law Q Rev 125:616–647Google Scholar
  72. Zimmermann R (1996) Savigny’s legacy. Legal history, comparative law, and the emergence of a European legal science. Law Q Rev 112:576–605Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, University of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations