The Constitutionalization of Intellectual Property Law in the EU and the Funke Medien, Pelham and Spiegel Online Decisions of the CJEU: Progress, but Still Some Way to Go!
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law - Tập 51 - Trang 282-306 - 2019
Tóm tắt
In the first part of the new millennium, the rise of the use of fundamental rights in shaping and using intellectual property norms has led one of the authors of this article to predict that this movement will be “constitutionalizing” intellectual property law. More than a decade and a half later, the influence of fundamental rights on the scope and limitations of intellectual property has never been more important, as illustrated by three seminal copyright decisions (in the Funke Medien, Pelham and Spiegel Online cases) delivered in July 2019 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. These decisions, dealing with the relationship between copyright and freedom of expression (including freedom of the media, information, and freedom of artistic creativity), stand out in the European judicial practice on copyright and fundamental rights for a number of reasons. First, freedom of expression and its balancing factors play a crucial role in shaping the contours of the exclusive rights, starting from the definition of copyright law’s subject-matter and extending to the right of reproduction, as well as – most importantly – to copyright limitations and exceptions. In essence, the CJEU takes a quite liberal position towards the national courts’ interpretation of existing copyright norms in the light of the freedom of expression requirements. The CJEU goes even as far as to term the Art. 5 InfoSoc exceptions not as “exceptions” as such but as self-sufficient rights of users of copyright-protected subject-matter. It is also notable that, in applying freedom of expression to EU copyright, the CJEU has largely relied on the case law of yet another supranational European court – the European Court of Human Rights – manifesting eagerness to engage in a “dialogue” with the principal human rights tribunal in Europe in order to establish guiding principles for EU copyright law informed by freedom of expression. Such a liberal, “freedom-of-expression-driven” approach of the CJEU to the interpretation of EU copyright appears quite analogue in results that could be reached by applying an external and/or open-ended copyright exception. Nevertheless, the Luxembourg Court indicates in Funke Medien, Pelham and Spiegel Online that an externally introduced flexibility (by means of complementing that already existing in the EU list of exceptions) could be harmful to copyright harmonization and legal certainty. Therefore, despite having taken a more favourable position on the possibility of shaping EU copyright by fundamental rights norms, the CJEU does not go all the way, since it considers in quite categorical terms that an external freedom of expression exception beyond the exhaustive list of limitations of Art. 5 InfoSoc is clearly inacceptable. According to the Court, copyright’s own internal mechanisms present sufficient safety valves for balancing with freedom of expression. Such a position of the CJEU that relies on the fact that the legislature has anticipated all the potential conflicts between copyright and higher ranking norms such as fundamental rights might be incompatible with the EU legal order. Thus, despite visible progress in flexibilizing copyright norms via their interpretation “in the light of” fundamental rights, some further steps will still need to be taken in the future to make the “constitutionalization” of IP law a complete reality in the EU.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Drassinower A (2015) What’s wrong with copying? HUP, Cambridge, MA
Geiger C (2004a) Droit d’auteur et droit du public à l’information, approche de droit comparé. Litec, Paris
Geiger C (2004b) De la nature juridique des limites au droit d’auteur: Une analyse comparatiste à la lumière des droits fondamentaux. Propriétés intellectuelles, No. 13, p 882
Geiger C (2004c) Fundamental rights, a safeguard for the coherence of intellectual property law? IIC 35(3):268
Geiger C (2006) “Constitutionalizing” intellectual property law? the influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in Europe. IIC 37(4):371
Geiger C (2007a) Copyright and the freedom to create: a fragile balance. IIC 38(6):707
Geiger C (2007b) Author’s right, copyright and the public’s right to information: a complex relationship. In: Macmillan F (ed) New directions in copyright law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Geiger C (2007c) Trade marks and freedom of expression: the proportionality of criticism. IIC 38(3):317
Geiger C (2008a) The constitutional dimension of intellectual property. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Kluwer Law International, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York
Geiger C (2008b) Flexibilising copyright: remedies to the privatisation of information by copyright law. IIC 39(2):178
Geiger C (2009a) Intellectual property shall be protected!? Article 17(2) of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union: a mysterious provision with an unclear scope. EIPR 31(3):113
Geiger C (2009b) Copyright’s fundamental rights dimension at EU level. In: Derclaye E (ed) Research handbook on the future of EU copyright. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Geiger C (2010a) Intellectual “property” after the Treaty of Lisbon, towards a different approach in the new European legal order? EIPR 32(6):255
Geiger C (2010b) Promoting creativity through copyright limitations: reflections on the concept of exclusivity in copyright law. Vanderbilt J Entertain Technol Law 12(3):515
Geiger C (2010c) The future of copyright in Europe: striking a fair balance between protection and access to information. IPQ 1:1
Geiger C (2012) Fundamental rights as common principles of European (and international) intellectual property law. In: Ohly A (ed) Common principles of European intellectual property law. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Geiger C (2013) The social function of intellectual property rights, or how ethics can influence the shape and use of IP law. In: Dinwoodie GB (ed) Methods and perspectives in intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Geiger C (2014) Implementing intellectual property provisions in human rights instruments: towards a new social contract for the protection of intangibles. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Geiger C (2016a) The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union: harmonizing, creating and sometimes disrupting copyright law in the European Union. In: Stamatoudi I (ed) New developments in EU and international copyright law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Geiger C (2016b) Copyright as an access right: securing cultural participation through the protection of creators’ interests. In: Giblin R, Weatherall KG (eds) What if we could reimagine copyright? Australian National University (ANU) Press, Acton
Geiger C (2017) Statutory licenses as enabler of creative uses. In: Liu K-C, Hilty RM (eds) Remuneration of copyright owners, regulatory challenges of new business models. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg
Geiger C (2018) Freedom of artistic creativity and copyright law: a compatible combination? UC Irvine Law 8(3):413
Geiger C (2019) “Fair use” through fundamental rights in Europe, when freedom of artistic expression allows creative appropriations and opens up statutory copyright limitations. In: Ng-Loy WL, Sun H, Balganesh S (eds) The Cambridge handbook of copyright limitations and exceptions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper No. 2018-19, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3256899. Accessed 6 Dec 2019
Geiger C, Izyumenko E (2014) Copyright on the human rights’ trial: redefining the boundaries of exclusivity through freedom of expression. IIC 45(3):316
Geiger C, Izyumenko E (2016) The role of human rights in copyright enforcement online: elaborating a legal framework for website blocking. Am Univ Int Law Rev 32(1):43
Geiger C, Izyumenko E (2018) Intellectual property before the European Court of Human Rights. In: Geiger C, Nard CA, Seuba X (eds) Intellectual property and the judiciary. EIPIN series, vol 4. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Geiger C, Izyumenko E (2019a) Freedom of expression as an external limitation to copyright law in the EU: the Advocate General of the CJEU shows the way. EIPR 41(3):131
Geiger C, Izyumenko E (2019b) Towards a European “fair use” grounded in freedom of expression. American University International Law Review 35:1. Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper No. 02-19. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3379531 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3379531. Accessed 6 Dec 2019
Geiger C, Izyumenko E (2019c) Blocking orders: assessing tensions with human rights. In: Frosio G (ed) The Oxford handbook of intermediary liability online. OUP, Oxford. Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper No. 2019-03. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3392253 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3392253. Accessed 6 Dec 2019
Geiger C, Schönherr F (2012) Defining the scope of protection of copyright in the EU: the need to reconsider the acquis regarding limitations and exceptions. In: Synodinou T-E (ed) Codification of European copyright law, challenges and perspectives. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Geiger C, Schönherr F (2014) Limitations to copyright in the digital age. In: Savin A, Trzaskowski J (eds) Research handbook on EU internet law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Geiger C, Schönherr F, Stamatoudi I, Torremans P (2014) The Information Society Directive. In: Stamatoudi I, Torremans P (eds) EU copyright law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 395
Geiger C, Griffiths J, Senftleben M, Bently L, Xalabarder R (2015) Limitations and exceptions as key elements of the legal framework for copyright in the European Union: opinion of the European Copyright Society on the judgment of the CJEU in case C-201/13 Deckmyn. IIC 46(1):93
Geiger C, Frosio G, Bulayenko O (2018a) The EU Commission’s proposal to reform copyright limitations: a good but far too timid step in the right direction. EIPR 40(1):4
Geiger C, Frosio G, Bulayenko O (2018b) The exception for text and data mining (TDM) in the proposed directive on copyright in the digital single market: legal aspects. In: Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper No. 2018-02, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3160586 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3160586. Accessed 6 Dec 2019
Geiger C, Nard CA, Seuba X (eds) (2018c) Intellectual property and the judiciary. EIPIN series, vol 4. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Griffiths J (2013) Constitutionalising or harmonising? The Court of Justice, the right to property and European copyright law. Eur Law Rev 38:65
Griffiths J (2018) Taking power tools to the acquis: the Court of Justice, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and European Union copyright law. In: Geiger C, Nard CA, Seuba X (eds) Intellectual property and the judiciary. EIPIN series, vol 4. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Griffiths J (2019) European Union copyright law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights: Advocate General Szpunar’s Opinions in (C-469/17) Funke Medien (C-476/17) Pelham GmbH and (C-516/17) Spiegel Online. ERA Forum 1:35
Griffiths J, McDonagh L (2013) Fundamental rights and European intellectual property law: the case of Art 17(2) of the EU Charter. In: Geiger C (ed) Constructing European intellectual property: achievements and new perspectives. EIPIN series, vol 1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Guilbault L (2010) Why cherry-picking never leads to harmonisation: the case of the limitations in copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC. JIPITEC 1:55
Hugenholtz PB, Senftleben M (2011) Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities. In: Institute for information law research paper No. 2012-33, Amsterdam
Husovec M (2014a) CJEU allowed website blocking injunctions with some reservations. JIPLP 9(8):631
Husovec M (2014b) Austrian Supreme Court confirms open-ended website blocking injunctions [UPC Telekabel Wien]. Blog post, Huťko´s Technology Law Blog. http://www.husovec.eu/2014/08/austrian-supreme-court-confirms-open.html. Accessed 6 Dec 2019
Husovec M (2019) The essence of intellectual property rights under Article 17(2) of the EU Charter. German Law J 20:840
Izyumenko E (2016) The freedom of expression contours of copyright in the digital era: a European perspective. J World Intellect Prop 19(3–4):115
Jongsma D (2019) AG Szpunar on copyright’s relation to fundamental rights: one step forward and two steps back? IPRinfo 1:1
Jütte BJ (2019) CJEU permits sampling of phonograms under a de minimis rule and the quotation exception. JIPLP 14(11):827
Jütte BJ, Quintais JP (2019a) Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? the Pelham judgment—part I. Blog Post, Kluwer Copyright Blog. http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/06/sample-sample-in-my-song-can-they-tell-where-you-are-from-the-pelham-judgment-part-i/. Accessed 6 Dec 2019
Jütte BJ, Quintais JP (2019b) Advocate General turns down the music: sampling is not a fundamental right under EU copyright law. EIPR 41(10):654
Kant I (1785) On the wrongfulness of unauthorized publication of books. Translated from German and edited by Gregor MJ (1996). In: Immanuel Kant practical philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Korff D, Brown I (2012) Issue discussion paper commissioned by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Social Media and Human Rights. CommDH (2012), Strasbourg. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1904319. Accessed 6 Dec 2019
Leistner M (2011) The German Federal Supreme Court’s judgment on Google’s image search: a topical example of the “limitations” of the European approach to exceptions and limitations. IIC 42(4):417
Lucas A (2010) For a reasonable interpretation of the three-step test. EIPR 32(6):277
Mylly T (2015) The constitutionalization of the European legal order: impact of human rights on intellectual property in the EU. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 103
Savola P (2014) Proportionality of website blocking: internet connectivity providers as copyright enforcers. JIPITEC 5(2):116
Schovsbo J (2015) Constitutional foundations and constitutionalization of IP law: a tale of different stories? Intellect Prop J 7(4):383
Senftleben M (2010) Bridging the differences between copyright’s legal traditions: the emerging EC fair use doctrine. J Copyr Soc USA 57(3):521
Senftleben M (2011) Overprotection and protection overlaps in intellectual property law: the need for horizontal fair use defences. In: Kur A, Mizaras V (eds) The structure of intellectual property law: can one size fit all? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 136
Sganga C (2019) A decade of fair balance doctrine, and how to fix it: copyright versus fundamental rights before the CJEU from Promusicae to Funke Medien, Pelham and Spiegel Online. EIPR 11:683
Snijders T, van Deursen S (2019) The road not taken: the CJEU sheds light on the role of fundamental rights in the European copyright framework: a case note on the Pelham, Spiegel Online and Funke Medien decisions. IIC 50:1176–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00883-0
Strowel A (2014) Pondération entre liberté d’expression et droit d’auteur sur internet: de la réserve des juges de Strasbourg à une concordance pratique par les juges de Luxembourg. Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 100:889
Suthersanen U (2008) Copyright as an engine of free speech: an English perspective. In: Copyright and freedom of expression: proceedings of the ALAI study days. Huygens Editorial, p 167
Vaver D (2000) Copyright law. Irwin Law, Toronto
Voorhoof D (2015) Freedom of expression and the right to information: implications for copyright. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 331
Westkamp G (2012) Emerging escape clauses? Online exhaustion, consent and European copyright law. In: Rosen J (ed) IP rights at the crossroads of trade. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham