Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Unities of Art: Reconciling Function and Copyright

  • Article
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Copyright protection for works of applied art poses certain challenges, primarily due to the functional aspects that they often incorporate. The approach to this predominant attribute, i.e. function, has shaped legal initiatives for copyright protection to works of applied art. In some countries, such as France, the design industry was colored by the prevalence of rather ornamental creations, with an eye toward fidelity to the craft tradition. Copyright law in these countries was able to embrace the applied arts more easily, elevating them to the level of fine arts and reviving the old unity of craft/art. On the other hand, some countries where function and standardization have been paramount, i.e. Germany in particular, have constructed their national strategy, and correspondingly copyright protection, within the framework of another form of unity. Instead of adhering to the old craft tradition, these countries opted for a unity between art, function and industry. This latter form of unity and the predominance of function and industry stamped the modern design to a far greater degree than the former one did. Against this historical-factual background, this article attempts to formulate rough guidelines for the application of a functionality doctrine, which has gradually emerged from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In line with the unity of art, function and industry, the article suggests to take what is termed a holistic approach to functionality and industry, arguing that a contrary approach would clash with the modern design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Case C-683/17, Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v. G-Star Raw CV, EU:C:2019:721, paras. 53–54.

  2. Opinion of AG Szpunar, Case C-683/17, Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v. G-Star Raw CV, EU:C:2019:363, para. 5.

  3. Case C-833/18, SI and Brompton Bicycle Ltd v. Chedech / Get2Get, EU:C:2020:461.

  4. Leistner (2019), p. 1118; Kur (2020), p. 292; Schovsbo (2020), p. 8.

  5. Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Case C-833/18, SI and Brompton Bicycle Ltd v. Chedech / Get2Get, EU:C:2020:79, paras. 18–28.

  6. Dutfield et al. (2020), p. 234.

  7. Shiner (2001), pp. 206–207.

  8. Sparke (2013), p. 26.

  9. Suthersanen (2015), p. 541.

  10. Styles (2010), p. 42.

  11. Bürdek (2005), p. 19.

  12. Shiner (2001), p. 209.

  13. Suthersanen (2000), pp. 7–9.

  14. Shiner (2001), p. 210.

  15. Suthersanen (2000), p. 9.

  16. Fowles (2004), p. 27.

  17. Greenhalgh (2010), p. 92.

  18. Triggs (1902), p. 44.

  19. Masiyakurima (2016), pp. 510–511.

  20. Triggs (1902), p. 186.

  21. Loos (2010), p. 99.

  22. Sparke (2013), p. 53.

  23. Teilmann-Lock (2018), pp. 43–46.

  24. Bürdek (2005), pp. 25–27.

  25. Sparke (2013), p. 54.

  26. Bürdek (2005), pp. 37–38.

  27. Naylor (2010), p. 117.

  28. Bürdek (2005), pp. 37–38.

  29. Houze (2010), p. 99.

  30. Greenhalgh (2010), pp. 93–94.

  31. Sparke (2013), p. 60.

  32. Muthesius and Van de Velde (2010), p. 101.

  33. Maciuika (2011), pp. 98–101.

  34. Silverman (1992), pp. 54–56.

  35. Sparke (2013), pp. 61, 62.

  36. Silverman (1992), pp. 59–61.

  37. See text to supra notes 18–20.

  38. See text to supra notes 24–28.

  39. Silverman (1992), pp. 12, 61–62.

  40. Ibid., p. 61.

  41. Shiner (2001), pp. 5, 34–42, 90–97; Barnard (1998), pp. 59–64.

  42. Suthersanen (2000), pp. 135, 136; Kahn (2018), pp. 9, 10.

  43. Finniss (1964), p. 616.

  44. Ibid., pp. 619–621; Kahn (2018), pp. 11–12; Suthersanen (2000), p. 136.

  45. Suthersanen (2000), p. 137.

  46. Suthersanen (2015), p. 544.

  47. See text to supra notes 35–36 for the demands of the furniture industry in France.

  48. Finniss (1964), pp. 617, 621; Suthersanen (2015), p. 544.

  49. Ginsburg (1989), p. 273.

  50. Kahn (2018), p. 13.

  51. Dutfield et al. (2020), p. 242.

  52. An Act for the Encouragement of the Arts of Designing and Printing of Linens, Cottons, Calicoes and Muslin, 1787, 27 Geo. 3, c. 38.

  53. Bently (2018), pp. 177–179; Suthersanen (2000), pp. 224, 225.

  54. Suthersanen (2000), pp. 226–228; Bently (2018), pp. 180–182; Llewelyn and Aplin (2019), pp. 600, 601.

  55. Bently (2018), pp. 192–197.

  56. Copyright Act 1911.

  57. Bently (2018), pp. 199, 200.

  58. Ohly (2018), p. 139.

  59. Schmidt (2019), pp. 64–65; Gersch (2019), pp. 17–18; Ohly (2018), pp. 139–140.

  60. Ohly (2018), pp. 141–142.

  61. Mezger (2017), p. 39.

  62. Ibid., p. 81.

  63. Ohly (2018), pp. 154–155.

  64. Dutfield et al. (2020), pp. 235–236.

  65. Ibid., p. 242.

  66. See text to supra note 17 et seq.

  67. Case C-604/10, Football Dataco Ltd and Others v. Yahoo! UK Ltd and Others, EU:C:2012:115, paras. 38–39.

  68. Case C-406/10, SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd, EU:C:2012:259, para. 46.

  69. Ibid., para. 49.

  70. Case C-683/17, Cofemel, paras. 30–31; Case C-833/18, Brompton, paras. 22–24.

  71. Suthersanen and Mimler (2020), pp. 574–575.

  72. Case C-393/09, Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v. Ministerstvo kultury, EU:C:2010:816, para. 49.

  73. Kahn (2018), p. 20.

  74. Goldstein and Hugenholtz (2019), p. 199.

  75. Suthersanen (2000), pp. 141–142.

  76. Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber Section A, 11 February 2004, PIBD 2004, 786, IIID-308.

  77. Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber, 11 October 2000, RIDA 2/2001, 367, as cited in Lucas et al. (2012), p. 115.

  78. Paris Court of Appeal, 1st Chamber, 23 October 1990, JCP G 1991, II, 21682, note by A. Lucas, RIDA 4/1991, 134, as cited in ibid., p. 115.

  79. French Supreme Court, Commercial Division, 26 May 2009, PIBD 2009, III, 1288, as cited in ibid., p. 115.

  80. French Supreme Court, Commercial Division, 9 March 1981, Bull. Civ. IV, No. 122; Ann. Propr. Ind. 1981, 191, as cited in ibid., p. 115.

  81. French Supreme Court, 1st Civil Division, 28 March 1995, 93-10.464, unpublished.

  82. Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber Section A, 22 June 2005, PIBD 2005, 817, IIID-644.

  83. See for instance: “An object is original and thus protectable by copyright if it has ornamental characteristics or aesthetic separable from its functional character” (Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber, 8 October 1997, PIBD 1998, 646, III-62); “it must establish their original character that is a creation with aesthetic characteristics separable from the functional ones” (Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber Section A, 4 April 2007, 05/24044); “whether … on the contrary, its form is only the result of a purely aesthetic research due to the arbitrariness of the imagination of its author, separable from its function and not imposed by technical reasons” (Marseille District Court, 1st Civil Chamber, 30 July 2015, 13/01172); “also reflects the intent of its author to give it ornamental or aesthetic characteristics separable from its functional character” (Chambéry Court of Appeal, 7 July 2009, 08/01665); “The work must bear the trace of a personal effort of creation and aesthetic research in the combination of the characteristic elements or present ornamental or aesthetic characteristics separable from its functional character” (Douai Court of Appeal, 1st Chamber Section 2, 16 June 2016, 14/06033).

  84. Lucas et al. (2012), p. 116.

  85. French Supreme Court, 1st Civil Division, 7 October 2020, 19-11.258, see IIC 52:647–649 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01061-x.

  86. French Supreme Court, 1st Civil Division, 7 October 2020, 18-19.441, see IIC, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01089-z.

  87. Art. L. 112-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code provides that: “The provisions of this Code shall protect the rights of authors in all works of the mind, whatever their kind, form of expression, merit or purpose”.

  88. See text to infra note 90 et seq., for the “holistic” approach.

  89. See text to supra note 34 et seq., and 64 et seq., for the French “unité de l'art”.

  90. See text to 32 et seq., for the contrast between the French and German strategies.

  91. Mezger (2017), pp. 141–143.

  92. Gersch (2019), pp. 82–83.

  93. Schmidt (2019), p. 121.

  94. Gersch (2019), p. 81.

  95. German Federal Supreme Court, 2 February 1961, Case No. I ZR 127/59, 1961 GRUR 635 – Stahlrohrstuhl I, p. 637.

  96. German Federal Supreme Court, 12 May 2011, Case No. I ZR 53/10 – Seilzirkus, paras. 18–22, 25.

  97. Bullinger (2019), Sec. 2, para. 97a.

  98. Schulze (2018), Sec. 2, para. 160.

  99. German Federal Supreme Court, 12 May 2011, Case No. I ZR 53/10 – Seilzirkus, para. 30. In Geburtstagszug II, the Court held that the replacement of magnetic joints with hooks in the birthday train toy did not constitute any artistic alteration. In contrast, it was technically necessary. Schleswig Court of Appeal, 11 September 2014, Case No. 6 U 74/10 – Geburtstagszug, para. 21.

  100. Supreme Court of the German Empire, RGZ 124, 68 – Besteckmuster, p. 71.

  101. German Federal Supreme Court, BGHZ 22, 209 – Europapost, p. 215.

  102. Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, 30 May 2002, Case No. 20 U 81/01, 2002 ZUM-RD 419, p. 423.

  103. Hamburg District Court, 7 July 2016, Case No. 310 O 212/14 – Minimalistische Bierflaschen, para. 52.

  104. George Hensher Ltd v. Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1975] RPC 31, p. 68 (Lord Simon).

  105. Ibid., p. 62 (Viscount Dilhorne).

  106. Ibid., p. 55 (Lord Reid).

  107. “The course of the statutory and case law in the United States respecting works of artistic craftsmanship requires separate identification of pictorial, graphic or sculptural features from utilitarian aspects of the article concerned; the former features must be capable of ‘existing independently’ of utilitarian aspects. However, … such an approach should not be adopted in construing the Australian legislation. This is derived from the 1911 Act, which must be understood in the light of what was said in Hensher respecting the Arts and Crafts movement”. See Burge v. Swarbrick [2007] HCA 17 (26 April 2007), para. 62.

  108. Case C-833/18, Brompton, paras. 26, 29–30, 33.

  109. Ibid., para. 34.

  110. Ibid., paras. 35–36

  111. See text to supra note 97.

  112. Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Case C-833/18, Brompton, para. 85.

  113. Ibid., para. 68.

  114. See text to supra notes 96–97.

  115. Ibid., paras. 73–74, citing Case C-48/09 P, Lego Juris A/S v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), EU:C:2010:516, paras. 48, 52.

  116. Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Case C-833/18, Brompton, para. 76.

  117. Ibid., footnote 40.

  118. See text to supra note 99.

  119. Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Case C-833/18, Brompton, para. 27.

  120. See text to supra note 17 et seq.

  121. In Flos, the CJEU expanded the reach of copyright protection by preventing the Member States from precluding copyright protection for works of applied art provided that “the design meets the conditions under which copyright protection is conferred”. See Case C-168/09, Flos SpA v. Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA, EU:C:2011:29, para. 36. However the decision did not clarify whether the harmonized originality criterion set out by the Court could also apply to the applied arts. Whether Art. 17 of the Design Directive could be interpreted to this effect gave rise to discussion in scholarly commentaries. See Bently (2012), p. 667 et seq.; Leistner (2013), pp. 35–43. The answer was ultimately given by Cofemel.

  122. Case C-683/17, Cofemel, paras. 53–54.

  123. Opinion of AG Szpunar, Case C-683/17, Cofemel, paras. 21, 49.

  124. Ibid., paras. 27, 29, 31–32.

  125. Mezger (2017), p. 29.

  126. Ohly (2018), pp. 154–155.

  127. German Federal Supreme Court, 22 June 1995, Case No. I ZR 119/93, 1995 GRUR 581 – Silberdistel, p. 582.

  128. German Federal Supreme Court, 13 November 2013, Case No. I ZR 143/12, 2014 GRUR 175 – Geburtstagszug, pp. 178–179.

  129. Ibid., p. 179.

  130. Bullinger (2019), Sec. 2, para. 97.

  131. Schmidt (2019), p. 130.

  132. Gersch (2019), p. 79.

  133. German Federal Supreme Court, 13 November 2013, Case No. I ZR 143/12, 2014 GRUR 175 – Geburtstagszug, p. 179.

  134. Bullinger (2019), Sec. 2, para. 97b.

  135. Mezger (2017), pp. 25–27.

  136. Case C-683/17, Cofemel, paras. 30, 31.

  137. Case C-833/18, Brompton, paras. 22–24.

  138. Opinion of AG Szpunar, Case C-683/17, Cofemel, paras. 56–58.

  139. Leistner (2019), p. 1118.

  140. Schovsbo (2020), p. 12.

  141. Kur (2020), p. 295.

  142. Endrich-Laimböck (2020), p. 268.

  143. Levin (2018), pp. 61–62.

  144. Dutfield et al. (2020), p. 253; Kur (2018), p. 184.

  145. Case R 690/2007-3, Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH v. Franssons Verkstäder AB, “Chaff Cutters”, ECLI:EU:C:2010:511, para. 36.

  146. Case C-833/18, Brompton, para. 35. The wording of the decision is rather vague. However, “factors which influenced the choice made by the creator” appear to be at the very center of its analysis.

  147. Ibid., para. 36.

  148. Ibid., para. 37.

  149. “The court is entitled to explore the inventor or designer’s original intention rather than that of the person who reproduces his invention or design”. See Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Case C-833/18, Brompton, para. 92. The AG also refused to give effect to exhibition of the work in museums or grant of awards. See ibid., para. 94.

  150. Considerations underlying the EU design legislation laid emphasis on the relationship between the design and the public, in contrast to copyright law where the personal relationship between the author and the work is at the center. Kur (2020), pp. 294–295.

  151. Kur and Levin (2018), pp. 11, 12.

  152. Schovsbo and Dinwoodie (2018), p. 147.

  153. Ibid., p. 148.

  154. Kur and Levin (2018), p. 12.

  155. Schovsbo and Dinwoodie (2018), p. 150; Kur and Levin (2018), p. 12.

  156. Case R 690/2007-3, Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH v. Franssons Verkstäder AB, “Chaff Cutters”, EU:C:2010:511.

  157. Case C-395/16, DOCERAM GmbH v. CeramTec GmbH, EU:C:2018:172.

  158. Case C-833/18, Brompton, paras. 35–36.

  159. Case R 690/2007-3, Lindner, para. 35.

  160. Case C-395/16, DOCERAM, paras. 31–32.

  161. Case R 690/2007-3, Lindner, para. 36.

  162. Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Case C-833/18, Brompton, para. 102. Also see text to supra note 108 et seq., for the analysis of Brompton’s functionality doctrine, which is termed as the “holistic approach” in this article.

  163. Even before Brompton, it was already suggested in scholarly opinions that copyright law’s exclusion of works “dictated by technical considerations, rules or constraints which leave no room for creative freedom” converges with the exclusion of functional features under design law. Kur (2020), p. 295.

  164. Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Case C-833/18, Brompton, para. 102.

  165. Case C-395/16, DOCERAM, paras. 37–38.

  166. In a similar vein, in German law, one school of thought points to the similarities between standards of design and copyright law, i.e. between the freedom of the designer and the room for creation (see Schulze (2018), Sec. 2, paras. 160, 177) despite the fact that design law and copyright law are conceived as qualitatively different fields in case law (see German Federal Supreme Court, 13 November 2013, Case No. I ZR 143/12, 2014 GRUR 175 – Geburtstagszug, pp. 178–179) and scholarly commentaries (see Loewenheim and Leistner (2020), Sec. 2, para. 182).

  167. “Dass sie eine Gestaltungshöhe erreichen, die es nach Auffassung der für Kunst empfänglichen und mit Kunstanschauungen einigermaßen vertrauten Kreise rechtfertigt, von einer ‘künstlerischen’ Leistung zu sprechen”. See German Federal Supreme Court, 13 November 2013, Case No. I ZR 143/12, 2014 GRUR 175 – Geburtstagszug, p. 177.

  168. George Hensher Ltd v. Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1975] RPC 31, 54 (Lord Reid).

  169. Such cumulation was permitted by Art. 17 of the EU Design Directive. See Derclaye (2018b), p. 629.

  170. See text to supra note 17 et seq.

  171. German Federal Supreme Court, 27 May 1981, Case No. I ZR 102/79 – Stahlrohrstuhl II, para. 19.

  172. Opinion of AG Szpunar, Case C-683/17, Cofemel, para. 4.

  173. Schmidt (2019), p. 130. In Seilzirkus, the BGH itself drew attention to such a potential result: “a work of applied art that enjoys a great aesthetic effect as a work of purposeless art may not be granted protection whereas the latter enjoys such protection”. See German Federal Supreme Court, 12 May 2011 – Case No. I ZR 53/10 – Seilzirkus, para. 36.

  174. Gersch (2019), p. 95.

  175. Schulze (2018), Sec. 2, paras. 159–160.

  176. Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Case C-833/18, Brompton, paras. 92–94.

  177. Sec. 52 of the CDPA laid down a defense after a period of 25 years against copyright claims for works applied industrially, i.e. produced more than 50 copies. It was repealed recently by Sec. 74 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act of 2013.

  178. Derclaye (2018a), p. 447.

  179. Schack (2019), pp. 129–130. One should note that this standpoint can hardly represent the prevailing view. In Geburtstagszug II, the fact that form and colors of the decoration increased sales of the caravan did not lead to a holding that it was dependent on function. See Schleswig Court of Appeal, 11 September 2014, Case No. 6 U 74/10, Geburtstagszug II, paras. 30–31.

  180. Derclaye (2018a), p. 442.

  181. See text to supra note 6 et seq.

  182. See text to supra note 17 et seq.

  183. Stamatoudi (2017), p. 70.

  184. “Nothing … in this field supports the view that the extent of such protection should depend on possible differences in the degree of creative freedom in the production of various categories of works”. See Case C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard Verlags GmbH and Others, EU:C:2011:798, para. 97.

  185. Kur et al. (2019), p. 427.

  186. Levin (2018), pp. 61–62.

  187. Mezger (2017), p. 34.

  188. Loewenheim and Leistner (2020), Sec. 2, para. 188a.

  189. Schulze (2018), Sec. 2, para. 160.

  190. Bullinger (2019), Sec. 2, para. 97a.

  191. Mezger (2017), p. 34.

  192. Schack (2019), p. 131.

  193. Designer’s Guild Ltd v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 W.L.R. 2416, 2423.

  194. Kenrick v. Lawrence [1890] 25 Q.B.D. 99.

  195. Llewelyn and Aplin (2019), p. 480.

  196. Leistner (2019), p. 1119.

  197. Case C-145/10, Painer, para. 97.

  198. Leistner (2019), p. 1118.

  199. See text to supra note 108 et seq.

  200. Case C-833/18, Brompton, para. 27.

References

  • Barnard M (1998) Art, design and visual culture: an introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bently L (2012) The return of industrial copyright? European Intellect Prop Rev 34:654–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Bently L (2018) The design/copyright conflict in the United Kingdom: a history. In: Derclaye E (ed) The copyright/design interface. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 171–225

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bullinger W (2019) UrhG § 2. In: Wandtke, Bullinger (eds) Praxiskommentar Urheberrecht, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

  • Bürdek BE (2005) Design: Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis der Produktgestaltung, 3rd edn. Birkhäuser – Verlag für Architektur, Basel; Boston; Berlin

  • Derclaye E (2018) A model copyright/design interface, not an impossible or undesirable task? In: Derclaye E (ed) The copyright/design interface. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 421–452

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye E (2018) Overlapping rights. In: Dreyfuss R, Pila J (eds) The Oxford handbook of intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 618–651

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutfield G, Suthersanen U, Dimita G, Mimler MD (2020) Dutfield and Suthersanen on global intellectual property law, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA

  • Endrich-Laimböck T (2020) Little guidance for the application of copyright law to designs in Cofemel. GRUR Int 69:264–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finniss G (1964) The theory of unity of art and the protection of designs and models in French law. J Pat Off Soc 46:615–630

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowles J (2004) The French lieutenant’s woman. Vintage Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersch CB (2019) Die Neuabgrenzung von Urheber- und Designrecht. Peter Lang, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg JC (1989) French copyright law: comparative overview. J Copyr Soc USA 36:269–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein P, Hugenholtz PB (2019) International copyright: principles, law and practice, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh P (2010) Introduction to modernism in design. In: Lees-Maffei G, Houze R (eds) The design history reader. Berg Publishers, Oxford, UK; New York, USA, pp 91–97

  • Houze R (2010) Section 3: modernisms, 1908–50. In: Lees-Maffei G, Houze R (eds) The design history reader. Berg Publishers, Oxford, UK; New York, USA, pp 89–90

  • Kahn A-E (2018) The copyright/design interface in France. In: Derclaye E (ed) The copyright/design interface. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 7–35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kur A (2018) The design approach and procedural practice. In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU design approach – a global perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, pp 172–190

  • Kur A (2020) Unité de l’art is here to stay – Cofemel and its consequences. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 15:290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kur A, Dreier T, Luginbuehl S (2019) European intellectual property law: text, cases and materials. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA

  • Kur A, Levin M (2018) The design approach revisited: background and meaning. In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU design approach – a global perspective. Edward Elgar, pp 1–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leistner M (2013) Der europäische Werkbegriff. Zeitschrift für Geist Eig 5:4–45. https://doi.org/10.1628/186723713x13639496216985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leistner M (2019) Einheitlicher europäischer Werkbegriff auch im Bereich der angewandten Kunst – Warum sich für die deutsche Praxis dennoch nicht viel ändern sollte. GRUR 1114–1120

  • Levin M (2018) The harmonising decisions from Luxembourg. In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU design approach – a global perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, pp 49–80

  • Llewelyn D, Aplin T (2019) Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights, 9th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenheim U, Leistner M (2020) UrhG § 2. In: Schricker, Loewenheim (eds) Urheberrecht, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

  • Loos A (2010) Ornament and crime. In: Lees-Maffei G, Houze R (eds) The design history reader. Berg Publishers, Oxford, UK; New York, USA, pp 98–100

  • Lucas A, Lucas H-J, Lucas-Schloetter A (2012) Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique, 4th edn. LexisNexis, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Maciuika JV (2011) The globalization of the Deutscher Werkbund: design reform, industrial policy, and German foreign policy, 1907–1914. In: Adamson G, Riello G, Teasley S (eds) Global design history. Routledge, London; New York, pp 98–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Masiyakurima P (2016) Copyright in works of artistic craftsmanship: an analysis. Oxf J Leg Stud 36:505–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezger L (2017) Die Schutzschwelle für Werke der angewandten Kunst nach deutschem und europäischem Recht. V&R unipress, Göttingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muthesius H, Van de Velde H (2010) Werkbund theses and antitheses. In: Lees-Maffei G, Houze R (eds) The design history reader. Berg Publishers, Oxford, UK; New York, USA, pp 101–103

  • Naylor G (2010) From workshop to laboratory, from the Bauhaus reassessed. In: Lees-Maffei G, Houze R (eds) The design history reader. Berg Publishers, Oxford, UK; New York, USA, pp 114–119

  • Ohly A (2018) The case for partial cumulation in Germany. In: Derclaye E (ed) The copyright/design interface. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 128–170

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schack H (2019) Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, 9th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

  • Schmidt A (2019) Wann ist Design Kunst im Sinne des Urheberrechts? Peter Lang, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schovsbo J (2020) Copyright and design law: what is left after all and Cofemel? – Or: design law in a “double whammy”. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3519156. Accessed 11 August 2020

  • Schovsbo J, Dinwoodie GB (2018) Design protection for products that are “dictated by function”. In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU design approach – a global perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, pp 142–171

  • Schulze G (2018) UrhG § 2. In: Dreier, Schulze (eds) Urhebergesetz, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

  • Shiner L (2001) The invention of art: a cultural history. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman DL (1992) Art nouveau in fin-de-siècle France: politics, psychology, and style. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparke P (2013) An introduction to design and culture 1900 to the present, 3rd edn. Routledge, London, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stamatoudi I (2017) Originality under EU copyright law. In: Torremans P (ed) Research handbook on copyright law, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, pp 67–84

  • Styles J (2010) Manufacturing, consumption and design in eighteenth-century England. In: Lees-Maffei G, Houze R (eds) The design history reader. Berg Publishers, Oxford, UK; New York, USA, pp 41–47

  • Suthersanen U (2000) Design law in Europe. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthersanen U (2015) Copyright and industrial objects: aesthetic considerations and policy discriminations. In: David M, Halbert D (eds) The SAGE handbook of intellectual property. SAGE, Los Angeles; London; Washington DC; New Delhi; Singapore, pp 539–561

  • Suthersanen U, Mimler MD (2020) An autonomous EU functionality doctrine for shape exclusions. GRUR Int 69:567–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teilmann-Lock S (2018) The design approach in a design historical perspective. In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU design approach – a global perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, pp 28–48

  • Triggs OL (1902) Chapters in the history of the Arts and Crafts Movement. The Bohemia Guild of the Industrial Art League, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LL.M. (Ankara); LL.M. (MIPLC); Ph.D. Candidate; Research Assistant, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Koray Güven

Authors
  1. Koray Güven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koray Güven.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Koray Güven is a Research Assistant at Ankara University’s Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Research and Application Center (FISAUM) and Faculty of Law. He also acts as a Program Coordinator of the Master of Laws in Intellectual Property, which is jointly organized by Ankara University, WIPO and the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office.

Several sections of this article were partly derived from the author’s master’s thesis studies conducted at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center in 2020. The master’s degree was funded by the Jean Monnet Scholarship Program, which is carried out by the Republic of Turkey and the European Commission.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Güven, K. Unities of Art: Reconciling Function and Copyright. IIC 52, 1161–1189 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01117-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01117-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation