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

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.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. the website of the EU Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/index_en.htm (accessed 8 April 2016).

  2. 2.

    See e.g. the recent Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, etc., Upgrading The Single Market: More Opportunities for People and Business, COM(2015) 550 final, 28 Oct. 2015; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market, 2016/0280 (COD), Recitals (1) and (3).

  3. 3.

    See e.g. Recitals (6) and (7) of the Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC.

  4. 4.

    E.g. The Wittem Group (2011); Fitzpatrick (2003), pp. 215–223, at 222–223; Cook and Derclaye (2011); Rosati (2010a); Sterling (2002), pp. 270–293, at 285–290. Critical, Cohen Jehoram (2001); Taylor (2009).

  5. 5.

    See the well-known, vociferous criticism by Legrand (1997); a newer and more topical discussion by Hesselink (2012). These authors discuss European private (contract) law, but similar problems appear in relation to European intellectual property law.

  6. 6.

    See e.g. in more detail as to the technicalities, Hofmann (2012), pp. 426–455, at 426–430; Armstrong (2013), pp. 601–617, at 605–606.

  7. 7.

    Well-known economists across the political spectrum have always pointed out that austerity measures made it impossible for the Greek economy to recover, though with different arguments and consequences, see e.g. Krugman (2015a); Sinn (2011).

  8. 8.

    E.g. Traynor (2015); Traynor and Rankin (2015); Uken (2015).

  9. 9.

    E.g. Krugman (2015b), Opinion Pages, 12 July 2015; Evans-Pritchard (2015).

  10. 10.

    The treatment of Greece was highly controversial in Germany itself, even among politicians, e.g. J. Fischer, former German minster of foreign affairs, J. Fischer (2015).

  11. 11.

    The ulterior motive for this seemingly generous invitation to Germany was mostly to obtain the cheap labour force of educated young people – which Germany needs because of its demographic situation.

  12. 12.

    The Council of Europe has voiced serious human rights concerns in relation to this “refugee deal”, see Rankin (2016).

  13. 13.

    E.g. Juncker (2016).

  14. 14.

    For intellectual property, see e.g. the statement in Recital (8) of the IP Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC: “The disparities between the [enforcement] systems of the Member States […] [do] not promote free movement within the Internal Market or create an environment conducive to healthy competition.”

  15. 15.

    Luxembourg has become notorious for that, see e.g. “LuxLeaks: Jean-Claude Juncker se défend d’être ‘l’ami du grand capital’”, Le Monde (online), 12 November 2014, Bower and Watt (2014). But other EU States, such as Ireland, Britain, or the Netherlands are similar examples.

  16. 16.

    Notably the only ones in Europe who welcomed the British EU referendum result were far right-wing political parties.

  17. 17.

    It has been amusing to witness that the principal and popular – and populist – campaigner for “Brexit”, and winner of the referendum, who used the question of EU membership only for trying to propel himself to the office of prime minister has been brutally eliminated in the last minute by this closest political allies. He used the people for his career but forgot that others would use his for theirs. See e.g. Rayner (2016).

  18. 18.

    A good illustration was the warning in a publication of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) of 25 May 2016 (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8296) (accessed 25 May 2016) that the effect of leaving the EU on public finances would require at least an additional one or two years of austerity, which prompted the reaction by the “Vote Leave” campaign that the IFS is a “paid-up propaganda arm of the European Commission,” see e.g. Weaver and Asthana (2016).

  19. 19.

    Herder (1989), II, 7, i, at 253; II, 8, ii, at 298.

  20. 20.

    Herder, Ideen, II, 9, iv, at pp. 369–370.

  21. 21.

    E.g. Ch. de Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, book 19, chap. 10.

  22. 22.

    Rahmatian (2015), pp. 115, 151, with further references to Kames’s works.

  23. 23.

    Hume (2003).

  24. 24.

    Herder, Ideen, II, 7, iii, at pp. 268–270; II, 7, v, at pp. 280–281; II, 8, at pp. 298–299.

  25. 25.

    Herder, Ideen, II, 9, iv, at pp. 369–370 (my translation).

  26. 26.

    Compare the passages of similar content in Herder, Ideen, III, 12, vi, at pp. 507–513.

  27. 27.

    But not without logical reasoning, see the example of logical conclusions in the explanation of the grounds (according to Herder, of course) of polygamy in the orient, see Herder, Ideen, II, 8, iv, at pp. 317–318.

  28. 28.

    Bollacher (1989); I. Berlin, “Herder and the Enlightenment”, p. 187.

  29. 29.

    Berlin (2000), pp. 168–242 at 198. Herder was favourable to the Scottish Enlightenment in which he saw much more similarity to his own approach, however, partly through some erroneous interpretations, see Rahmatian (2015), pp. 147–148.

  30. 30.

    I. Berlin, “Herder and the Enlightenment”, pp. 195–199.

  31. 31.

    Norton (2007).

  32. 32.

    Herder, Ideen, IV, 16, at p. 677.

  33. 33.

    Herder, Ideen, IV, 16, iii, at pp. 690–691, in this context in relation to the German peoples.

  34. 34.

    Herder, Ideen, II, 7, i, at pp. 255–256.

  35. 35.

    “The “genius” of a people manifests itself nowhere better than in the appearance of its speech”, Herder, Ideen, II, 9, ii, at p. 353.

  36. 36.

    E.g. Herder, Ideen, II, 6, iv, at p. 233; II, 7, i, at p. 253; II, 8, iii, at p. 312; II, 8, v, at p. 333; II, 9, iii, pp. 358–359.

  37. 37.

    Consequently, Herder presents the Jews as a people who have preserved their cultural identity and national character over hundreds of years of prosecution; and Herder rejects strongly the persecution of Jews and what would later be called anti-Semitism, see Herder, Ideen, III, 12, iii, at pp. 483, 490–492; IV, 16, v, at p. 702.

  38. 38.

    Herder, Ideen, IV, 16, vi, at p. 706.

  39. 39.

    Herder, Ideen, II, 8, v, at pp. 333–335.

  40. 40.

    Herder, Ideen, II, 8, iv, at p. 316.

  41. 41.

    Herder, Ideen, II, 9, iv, at pp. 362, 367. Herder’s indebtedness to Rousseau is obvious here.

  42. 42.

    Herder, Ideen, IV, 16, vi, at pp. 705–706.

  43. 43.

    Herder, Ideen, IV, 16, at p. 678.

  44. 44.

    It is a form of nationalism, see I. Berlin, supra note 29, pp. 179, 205–206, but it is anachronistic to equate this “nationalism” with the nineteenth century nationalism and present nationalist movements.

  45. 45.

    See, for example, for the first case, Herder’s characterisation of the Saxons, Normans and Danes, Herder, Ideen, IV, 18, iv, at p. 789, for the second case, Herder’s remarks about the Slavonic peoples, Herder, Ideen, IV, 16, iv, at p. 696–699.

  46. 46.

    Herder (2012).

  47. 47.

    Becker (1987).

  48. 48.

    Ibid., at 123.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., at 115–117, 127, 133.

  50. 50.

    J. G. Herder, Auch eine Philosophie, pp. 66–67.

  51. 51.

    Rahmatian (2007), pp. 1–29, at 5–7 with references to Savigny’s German text.

  52. 52.

    For extensive criticism of Savigny’s Volksgeistlehre, see Rahmatian (2007), pp. 1–29, at 9–13, 17–18.

  53. 53.

    Legrand (2003), pp. 260–261 (n. 66), 266, 268.

  54. 54.

    Zimmermann (1996).

  55. 55.

    The (rather academic) project of a European Civil Code never obtained a clear endorsement from the EU, see Whittaker (2009), pp. 616–647, at 623.

  56. 56.

    “Unity in difference”, see I. Berlin, supra note 29, p. 177.

  57. 57.

    This idea of an underlying unity in the appearing (not only apparent) diversity or variety can also be found in Goethe’s idea of the archetypal plant (“Urpflanze”), and this approach would also influence Alexander von Humboldt. See Goethe (1982), pp. 64, 579. Goethe was of course profoundly influenced by Herder.

  58. 58.

    First Minister Alex Salmond, The Scotsman, 11 June 2008: “This is great news. It’s a victory for Scotland and its financial sector. I’m delighted the Treasury have dropped their ludicrous proposals that threatened the very existence of Scottish banknotes. Let’s hope they’ve finally learnt their lesson and never jeopardise our banknotes again.”

  59. 59.

    Montesquieu (1977), p. 378, (with slight changes of the translation by the author).

  60. 60.

    European Parliament resolution of 9 July 2015 on the implementation of 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 related rights in the information society (2014/2256 (INI)).

  61. 61.

    Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, see also Recitals (3) and (4).

  62. 62.

    Directive 2014/26/EU of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi–territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, OJ L. 84/72.

  63. 63.

    EU Parliament Resolution of 9 July 2015, paras. 3, 9, 12, 13.

  64. 64.

    Paras. 7 and 50.

  65. 65.

    Rosati (2013), pp. 47–68, at 65–66; Cook and Derclaye (2011), pp. 259–269, at 262–263; Geiger et al. (2015) pp. 683–701, at 686, questioning the role of territoriality for fair remuneration.

  66. 66.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM (2016) 593 final), Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 2, 9, Recital (5), Arts. 1 and 2.

  67. 67.

    Seville (2011), pp. 1039–1055, at 1042.

  68. 68.

    Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property, and Recitals (7)–(9).

  69. 69.

    Directive 2014/26/EU of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, OJ L 84/72. A predecessor of this Directive was the (non-binding) Commission Recommendation 2005/737/EC of 18 May 2005 on Collective Cross-border Management of Copyright and Related Rights for Legitimate Online Music Services [2005] OJ L 276/54.

  70. 70.

    Rahmatian (2011), pp. 361–383, at 366–367, 373–375.

  71. 71.

    This is in reality so everywhere despite formal conceptual differences (e.g. the German Immaterialgüterrecht) or academic discourse about whether copyright is really a property right; see discussion in A. Rahmatian, Copyright and Creativity (2011), pp. 25–35, 60–67.

  72. 72.

    For the international situation, see Dinwoodie (2009).

  73. 73.

    Derclaye (2014), pp. 716–732, at 719.

  74. 74.

    CDPA 1988, Secs. 3–8; Bently and Sherman (2014).

  75. 75.

    France: CPT 1992, Art. 112-2; Germany: Sec. 2(1) Author’s Rights Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) 1965.

  76. 76.

    Especially Football Association Premier League and others v. QC Leisure and others, and Murphy v. Media Protection Services (C-429/08) [2012] Bus LR 1321, paras. 96–97. Perhaps also Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace v. Svaz softwarové ochrany v. Ministerstvo kultury [2011] FSR 18 (Case C-393/09), para. 46.

  77. 77.

    Football Association Premier League and others v. QC Leisure and others, and Murphy v. Media Protection Services (C-429/08) [2012] Bus LR 1321, paras. 96 and 97.

  78. 78.

    See discussion in Rosati (2013), pp. 47–68, at 60.

  79. 79.

    Vivant and Bruguière (2013); Rehbinder (2010).

  80. 80.

    TRIPS Agreement 1994, Art. 9(2), Directive 2009/24/EC (Software Directive), Art. 1(2), US Copyright Act 1976, § 102(b).

  81. 81.

    Vivant and Bruguière (2013).

  82. 82.

    Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace v. Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury [2011] FSR 18 (Case C-393/09) [2011] ECDR 3, para. 49; (indirectly) Football Association Premier League and others v. QC Leisure and others, and Murphy v. Media Protection Services (C-429/08) [2012] Bus LR 1321, especially para. 98; Football Dataco Ltd and others v. Yahoo! UK Ltd and others (Case C-604/10) [2012] ECDR 10, para. 39.

  83. 83.

    A. Rahmatian, Copyright and Creativity (2011), pp. 17–18.

  84. 84.

    CDPA 1988, Sec. 3(2).

  85. 85.

    There are exceptions: In the UK broadcasts need no fixation, in France choreographic works need fixation.

  86. 86.

    Berne Convention, Art. 2(2).

  87. 87.

    Berne Convention, Art. 2(1), (2) and (5).

  88. 88.

    That may also apply to the UK: Bently and Sherman (2014).

  89. 89.

    Wittem Project, European Copyright Code, Art. 1.1(2): “The following [works] in particular …” (emphasis added).

  90. 90.

    CDPA 1988, Secs. 3(1)(a)–(d) and 4.

  91. 91.

    For example in Hi-Tech Autoparts v. Towergate Two Ltd. (Nos. 1 and 2) [2002] FSR 254 and 270 (moulds for car rubber floor mats as engravings), Norowzian v. Arks (No. 2) [2000] EMLR pp. 67, at 73 (dramatic work capable of being performed also as a film). However, this was not always so: Creation Records v. News Group [1997] EMLR p. 444 (independent photographing of an arranged scene); Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208 (Star Wars storm trooper helmet is not a sculpture).

  92. 92.

    Compare the umbrella term of the Berne Convention, Art. 2(1): “literary and artistic works” include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain.

  93. 93.

    On the way fashion could be covered within the closed list of work categories in the UK, see Silverman (2013), pp. 637–645, at 639–640, 645.

  94. 94.

    Cramp v. Smythson [1944] AC 329, effectively also Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance [1982] RPC 69 (one single word: no literary work, whether that is a decision on qualitative or quantitative grounds is debatable).

  95. 95.

    Strowel (2014), pp. 1127–1154, at 1130.

  96. 96.

    Directive 2006/115/EC, Art. 8(2).

  97. 97.

    Padawan SL v. Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) (C-467/08) [2010] ECR I-271, para. 33; Discretion of the EU Member State within the limits of EU law to determine the obligation under the Directive (fair compensation under Art. 5(2)(b) of the Information Society Directive 2001/29) in the absence of sufficiently precise community criteria, Amazon and others v. Austro-Mechana GmbH (C-521/11) [2014] 1 CMLR 11, para. 21.

  98. 98.

    EGEDA (C-470/14), 9 June 2016, paras. 38, 42.

  99. 99.

    Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v. Helena Vandersteen and Others (C-201/13) [2014] ECDR 21, paras. 14–17.

  100. 100.

    In these specific instances this is in effect still so, although the interpretation by the ECJ does not necessarily confine itself to one single Directive but combines several for its findings, for example in Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v. Belgische Staat (C-271/10) [2011] ECDR 19, para. 27: “… regard being had for the requirements deriving from the unity and coherence of the legal order of the European Union, that concept of remuneration must be interpreted in the light of the rules and principles established by all of the directives on intellectual property, as interpreted by the Court.”.

  101. 101.

    Infopaq (Case C-5/08), paras. 27–28.

  102. 102.

    Geiger and Schönherr (2014a), pp. 434–484, at 456.

  103. 103.

    Directive 96/9/EC (Database Directive) Art. 3(1); Directive 2009/24/EC (Software Directive), Art. 1(3), Directive 2006/116/EC (Term Directive), Art. 6.

  104. 104.

    Rahmatian (2013), pp. 4–34, at 11–12, 18.

  105. 105.

    Directive 2008/95/EC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.

  106. 106.

    Derclaye (2010); L. Bently, “Harmonisation by stealth: The role of the ECJ”, at the CRID/IvIR Conference, European Parliament, Brussels, 13 January 2012; Rosati (2013); Rahmatian (2013).

  107. 107.

    Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECDR p. 16 (Case C-5/08), paras. 27–29.

  108. 108.

    Directive 2001/29/EC, Art. 2(a).

  109. 109.

    In Art. 1(3) of Directive 2009/24/EC (originally Directive 91/250): Software Directive; Art. 3(1) of Directive 96/9: Database Directive; Art. 6 of Directive 2006/116/EC: Term Directive.

  110. 110.

    Infopaq (Case C-5/08), paras. 33, 35.

  111. 111.

    “Work” according to the meaning in Art 2(a) of the Information Society Directive.

  112. 112.

    Infopaq (Case C-5/08), para. 37.

  113. 113.

    Football Association Premier League and others v. QC Leisure and others, and Murphy v. Media Protection Services (C-429/08) [2012] Bus LR 1321, especially paras. 96–97. Perhaps also Bezpečnostní, para. 46: “… the graphic user interface [the work at issue] can, as a work, be protected by copyright if it is its author’s own intellectual creation.” (emphasis added).

  114. 114.

    Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace v. Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury [2011] FSR 18 (Case C-393/09) [2011] ECDR 3, paras. 45–46, 51.

  115. 115.

    Painer v. Standard Verlags GmbH, Axel Springer AG, Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH, Spiegel-Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG, Verlag M. DuMont Schauberg Expedition der Kölnischen Zeitung GmbH & Co KG (C-145/10).

  116. 116.

    Painer (C-145/10), paras. 87–92.

  117. 117.

    Directive 2006/116/EC, Art. 6.

  118. 118.

    Section 72 German Author’s Rights Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) 1965; Rehbinder (2010), 87, 319.

  119. 119.

    Schulze (2013), p. 1157.

  120. 120.

    Football Dataco Ltd and others v. Yahoo! UK Ltd and others (Case C-604/10) [2012] ECDR p. 10.

  121. 121.

    SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd (C-406/10) [2012] ECDR 22.

  122. 122.

    Bezpečnostní, paras. 45–46; Football Dataco, paras. 37–38; SAS, para. 67.

  123. 123.

    Football Dataco Ltd and others v. Yahoo! UK Ltd and others (Case C-604/10) [2012] ECDR 10, paras. 42, 46.

  124. 124.

    “Continental copyright” tradition is a flawed term, but in the original Italian of the Advocate-General’s opinion it says correctly: “tradizione continentale del diritto d’autore”, at para. 37.

  125. 125.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Mengozzi (Case C-604/10), paras. 35, 37.

  126. 126.

    Art. 267 TFEU.

  127. 127.

    Infopaq (C-5/08), paras. 48, 51.

  128. 128.

    See, for France, Vivant and Bruguière (2013), p. 232.

  129. 129.

    Section 2(2) German Author’s Rights Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) 1965.

  130. 130.

    Loewenheim (2010), "Einleitung" note 6.

  131. 131.

    Painer (C-145/10), para. 91.

  132. 132.

    Incidentally, here the ECJ is a child of its time, because the central principle of prevalent “neo-liberalism” is also that of (politically and socially) irrelevant choice in the marketplace.

  133. 133.

    University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601, at pp. 609–610, per Peterson J; Ladbroke (Football) v. William Hill (Football) [1964] vol. 1 WLR p. 273.

  134. 134.

    I have suggested this interpretation in Rahmatian (2013), pp. 4–34, at 30.

  135. 135.

    Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co Inc. 499 US 340.

  136. 136.

    Derclaye (2010); Rosati (2010b), pp. 524–543, 542–543.

  137. 137.

    A. Rahmatian, Copyright and Creativity (2011) pp. 47–48.

  138. 138.

    Usually the CJEU has to deal with highly complex technical matters of IP law which makes judicial harmonisation more complicated. As to the problem of the judges’ expertise on the relationship between copyright and design law, Bently (2012), pp. 654–672, at 663–664 (on Flos (C-168/09).

  139. 139.

    Wittem Project, European Copyright Code, Art. 1.1(1) and footnotes 6 and 7: “(6) The Code does not use or define the term original, but in practice it might still be used to indicate that the production qualifies as a (protected) work. (7) The term ‘the author’s own intellectual creation’ is derived from the acquis (notably for computer programs, databases and photographs). It can be interpreted as the ‘average’ European threshold, presuming it is set somewhat higher than skill and labour. This is possible if emphasis is put on the element of creation. For factual and functional works, the focus will be more on a certain level of skill (judgement) and labour, whereas for productions in the artistic field the focus will be more on personal expression.”

  140. 140.

    A. Rahmatian, Copyright and Creativity (2011), pp. 40–42, 55 and note 379 (on the concept of ergänzender Leistungsschutz in German law).

  141. 141.

    UK CDPA 1988, Part I, chap. IV, Secs. 77 et seq.; US Copyright Act 1976, § 106A (incorporation of Visual Artists Rights Act 1990); Australian Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000, No. 159.

  142. 142.

    Cornish (1989): “an extreme form of dualism”.

  143. 143.

    Vivant and Bruguière (2013), pp. 237, 240 with critical comments as to the practical application of this principle.

  144. 144.

    German Sec. 2(2) Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Urheberrechtsgesetz) 1965.

  145. 145.

    Austrian Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) 1936, Sec. 1(1) (“eigentümliche geistige Schöpfungen”).

  146. 146.

    TRIPS Agreement, Art. 9(2).

  147. 147.

    Berne Convention, Art. 5(2), together with Art. 2(2).

  148. 148.

    Wittem Project, European Copyright Code, Arts. 3.1–3.6 and footnotes 31–36.

  149. 149.

    Wittem Project, European Copyright Code, Arts. 3.3(2) and 3.4(2).

  150. 150.

    Rosati (2010a), pp. 862–868, at 864.

  151. 151.

    Hugenholtz (2000), pp. 499–505, at 499–500.

  152. 152.

    Strowel (1993), pp. 494–495.

  153. 153.

    Discussion in A. Rahmatian, Copyright and Creativity (2011), pp. 206–208, with references to national laws.

  154. 154.

    But the monist theory is uncontroversial in Germany and Austria, see Ulmer (1960), pp. 97–104, and (less clearly) Secv. 11 German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) 1965.

  155. 155.

    Rehbinder (2010), p. 16.

  156. 156.

    See discussion in A. Rahmatian, Copyright and Creativity (2011), pp. 240–243.

  157. 157.

    Certain interpretations of the German author’s rights law in the national-socialist spirit after 1933 give an eerie indication as to how that could be done, for example by Elster (1933), pp. 189–207, at 191, 193, 198–199.

  158. 158.

    In the recent “Brexit” referendum in the UK a large number of people voted against EU membership of the UK without any knowledge about the EU at all. See e.g. Fung (2016).

  159. 159.

    Southern (1970), pp. 64–67.

  160. 160.

    Directive 2001/29/EC.

  161. 161.

    Directive 2001/29/EC, Recital (32).

  162. 162.

    Directive 2001/29/EC, Art. 5(5).

  163. 163.

    Berne Convention, Art. 9(2).

  164. 164.

    TRIPS Agreement, Art. 13.

  165. 165.

    WIPO Copyright Treaty, Art. 10(1).

  166. 166.

    On the history of the three-step test, see Geiger, Gervais, Senftleben (2013), pp. 581–626, at 583.

  167. 167.

    Helpful overview of the EU legislative scheme of copyright exceptions and limitations in: J. Pila, P. Torremans, European Intellectual Property Law (2016), p. 332.

  168. 168.

    Directive 2001/29/EC, Art. 5(3)(o).

  169. 169.

    Geiger and Schönherr (2014b), pp. 395, at 439–440.

  170. 170.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, 14 Sept. 2016, COM (2016) 593 final, 2016/0280 (COD).

  171. 171.

    See Art. 4(1): “Member States shall provide …”.

  172. 172.

    See also Proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Recital (14).

  173. 173.

    Proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Recitals (1) and (2).

  174. 174.

    For example, the Proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Explanatory Memorandum, pt. 1 (p. 2), states simply: “Exceptions and limitations to copyright and neighbouring rights are harmonised at EU level.”

  175. 175.

    Schütze (2012), p. 364.

  176. 176.

    Schütze, European Constitutional Law, p. 365–367 with examples from ECJ/CJEU case law.

  177. 177.

    Rosati (2014), pp. 585–598, at 587–594.

  178. 178.

    Cook and Derclaye (2011), pp. 259–269, at 263–264. Copyright Directives for the harmonisation of national laws are passed under Art. 114 TFEU; see, as to the relevant criteria (internal market considerations etc.), Ramalho (2014), pp. 178–220, at 181, 184–185.

  179. 179.

    E.g. Martin Luksan v. Petrus van der Let (C-277/10), para. 64; see also the discussion by Rosati (2014), pp. 589–590.

  180. 180.

    See Dreier (2015), pp. 138–146, at 141.

  181. 181.

    De Witte (2015), pp. 434–457, at 438. De Witte stresses, probably somewhat controversially, that “there is no evidence of an overall intergovernmental plot against the integrity of the EU legal order”.

  182. 182.

    Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (2013) OJ 2013/C 175/01.

  183. 183.

    Regulation 1257/2012 (enhanced cooperation regarding unitary patent protection) and Regulation 1260/2012 (translation arrangements).

  184. 184.

    CJEU C-274/11 and C-295/11.

  185. 185.

    CJEU C-146/13 (subject-matter was the annulment of Regulation (EU) 1257/2012). See extensive discussion of the legislative history by Plomer (2015), pp. 508–533, at 524–525.

  186. 186.

    See discussion in De Witte (2015), pp. 434–457, at 440–444, 448–450.

  187. 187.

    E.g. Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC, Art. 5(2) and (3).

  188. 188.

    See e.g. discussion by Follesdal and Hix (2006), pp. 533–562, at 534–537.

  189. 189.

    Whether Chapter 22, Art. 5 on copyright of CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) between Canada and the EU (the equivalent to the currently negotiated TTIP with the USA), if adopted, could have a harmonising force, and what the legal status of CETA would be if the EU were to disappear, remains to be seen.

  190. 190.

    Armstrong (2013), pp. 601–617, at 602–603, 605–606.

References

  1. Armstrong KA (2013) The new governance of EU fiscal discipline. Eur Law Rev 38(5):601–617

    Google Scholar 

  2. Becker B (1987) Herder-Rezeption in Deutschland. Röhrig Verlag, St. Ingbert, pp 79–90

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bently L (2012) Case comment: the return of industrial copyright? EIPR 34(10):654–672

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bently L, Sherman B (2014) Intellectual property law, 4th edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 59–61

    Google 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 168–242

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bollacher M (1989) In: Herder JG (ed) Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, Frankfurt, pp 901–937

  7. Bower S, Watt N (2014) Luxembourg tax files: Juncker ‘solved problems’ for Amazon move, The Guardian, 10 December 2014

  8. Cohen Jehoram H (2001) European copyright law-ever more horizontal. IIC 32(5):532–545

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cook T, Derclaye E (2011) An EU copyright code; what and how, if ever? IPQ 3:259–269

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cornish WR (1989) Moral rights under the 1988 Act. EIPR 11(12):449–452

    Google 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):434–457

    Article  Google 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):247–251

    Google Scholar 

  13. Derclaye E (2014) The Court of Justice copyright case law: quo vadis? EIPR 36(11):716–732

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dinwoodie GB (2009) Developing a private international intellectual property law: the demise of territoriality? W & Mary L Rev 51:711–800

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dreier T (2015) Thoughts on revising the limitations on copyright under Directive 2001/29. JIPLP 11(2):138–146

    Google 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 189–207

    Google Scholar 

  17. Evans-Pritchard A (2015) Greece is being treated like a hostile occupied state. The Telegraph, 13 July 2015

  18. Fischer J (2015) Fatale Entscheidung für ein deutsches Europa, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 26 July 2015

  19. Fitzpatrick S (2003) Prospects of further copyright harmonisation? EIPR 25(5):215–223

    Google Scholar 

  20. Follesdal A, Hix S (2006) Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU. J Common Mark Stud 44(3):533–562

    Article  Google 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

  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 434–484

  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 395

    Google 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 29:581–626

  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):683–701

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goethe JWV (1982) Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen. In: Werke. Hamburger Ausgabe, vol 13, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, pp 64–101

  27. Herder JG (1989) Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. In: Bollacher M (ed). Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, Frankfurt

  28. Herder JG (2012) Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menschheit. In: Irmscher H-D (ed). Reclam, Stuttgart

  29. Hesselink M (2012) The case for a common European sales law in an age of rising nationalism. Eur Rev Contract Law 8(3):342–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hofmann C (2012) Stabilizing the financial sector: EU financial services 2010–2012. Eur Rev Contract Law 8(4):426–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hugenholtz B (2000) Why the Copyright Directive is unimportant, and possibly invalid. EIPR 22(11):499–505

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hume D (2003) Of national characters. In: Hume D, Haakonssen K (eds) Political essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–92

    Google 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

  35. Krugman P (2015b) Killing the European project, New York Times, Opinion Pages, 12 July 2015

  36. Legrand P (1997) Against a European Civil Code. Mod Law Rev 60:44–62

    Article  Google 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

    Google Scholar 

  38. Loewenheim U (2010) Einleitung. in: Schricker G, Loewenheim U (eds) Urheberrecht. Kommentar. C.H. Beck, Munich

  39. Montesquieu C (1977) The Spirit of Laws, book 19, chap. 18. In: Carrithers DW (ed). University of California Press, Berkeley

  40. Norton RE (2007) The myth of the counter-Enlightenment. J Hist Ideas 68(4):635–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Plomer A (2015) A unitary patent for a disunited Europe: the long shadow of history. IIC 46(5):508–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rahmatian A (2007) Friedrich Carl v. Savigny’s Beruf and Volksgeistlehre. J Legal Hist 28:1–29

    Article  Google 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 361–383

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rahmatian A (2013) Originality in UK copyright law: the old “skill and labour” doctrine under pressure. IIC 44:4–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rahmatian A (2015) Lord Kames: legal and social theorist. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

  46. Ramalho A (2014) Conceptualising the European Union’s competence in copyright —what can the EU do? IIC 45(2):178–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rankin J (2016) Council of Europe condemns EU’s refugee deal with Turkey. The Guardian, 20 April 2016

  48. Rayner G (2016) How Boris Johnson was brought to his knees by the ‘cuckoo nest plot’. The Telegraph, 1 July 2016

  49. Rehbinder M (2010) Urheberrecht, 16th edn, C.H. Beck, Munich

  50. Rosati E (2010a) The Wittem Group and the European Copyright Code. JIPLP 5(12):862–868

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rosati E (2010b) Originality in US and UK copyright experiences as a springboard for an EU-wide reform debate. IIC 41(5):524–543

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rosati E (2013) Towards an EU-wide copyright? (Judicial) pride and (legislative) prejudice. (2013) IPQ 47–68

  53. Rosati E (2014) Copyright in the EU: in search of (in)flexibilities. JIPLP 9(7):585–598

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schulze G (2013) In: Th. Dreier and G. Schulze, Urheberrechtsgesetz. Kommentar, 4th edn. (Munich: C. H. Beck), Sec. 72 No. 2, p. 1157

  55. Schütze R (2012) European Constitutional Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  56. Seville C (2011) Intellectual property. Int Comp Law Q 60(4):1039–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Silverman I (2013) Copyright and fashion: friends at last? EIPR 35(11):637–645

    Google 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, London

  60. Sterling JAL (2002) International codification of copyright law: possibilities and imperatives. IIC 33(3):270–293

    Google Scholar 

  61. Strowel A (1993) Droit d’auteur et copyright. Émile Bruylant, Librairie generale de droit et de jurisprudence, Bruxelles

    Google 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 1127–1154

    Google 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 3:281–287

    Google Scholar 

  64. The Wittem Group (2011) European Copyright Code. EIPR 33(2):76–82

    Google Scholar 

  65. Traynor I (2015) Greece crisis talks: the July weekend that saved the euro but broke the EU? 13 July 2015

  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 2015

  67. Uken M (2015) Alles fu¨r den Euro, Die Zeit (online), 13 July 2015

  68. Ulmer E (1960) Urheber- und Verlagsrecht, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  69. Vivant M, Bruguière J-M (2013) Droit d’auteur et droits voisins, 2nd edn

  70. Weaver M, Asthana A (2016) Vote leave attacks IFS thinktank over Brexit austerity prediction. The Guardian, 25 May 2016

  71. Whittaker S (2009) A framework for European contract law? Law Q Rev 125:616–647

    Google Scholar 

  72. Zimmermann R (1996) Savigny’s legacy. Legal history, comparative law, and the emergence of a European legal science. Law Q Rev 112:576–605

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Rahmatian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahmatian, A. European Copyright Inside or Outside the European Union: Pluralism of Copyright Laws and the “Herderian Paradox”. IIC 47, 912–940 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0531-4

Download citation

Keywords

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