Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a...
Transcript of Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a...
OriginalityUnderEUCopyrightLaw
AikateriniPilichou
SCHOOLOFECONOMICS,BUSINESSADMINISTRATIONANDLEGALSTUDIES
AthesissubmittedforthedegreeofMasterofArts(MA)inArt,LawandEconomy
October2017Thessaloniki–Greece
-I-
StudentName: AikateriniPilichou
SID: 2202150009Supervisor: Dr.IriniStamatoudi
IherebydeclarethattheworksubmittedismineandthatwhereIhavemadeuseofanother’swork,Ihaveattributedthesource(s)accordingtotheRegulationssetintheStudent’sHandbook.
October2017Thessaloniki-Greece
-I-
Abstract
SincethecreationofwhatatthetimewascalledEuropeanCommunity,asfarascopy-
rightlawsacrossEuropeareconcerned,therehavebeenacutedifferencesacrossthe
variousjurisdictionsofMemberStatesandespeciallybetweenthecommonlawtradi-
tionof theUKand Irelandand thatof theprevalent civil law in continental Europe.
Throughtheyears,thesedifferenceshavecausedmajorproblemsintheInternalMar-
ket and the EU has been trying to resolve them. In recent decades, the originality
standard,whichconstitutestheonlyprerequisitefortheprotectionofaworkbycopy-
rightlaw,hasbeenfurtherclarifiedandreachedanimportantextentofharmonization
acrosstheUnion,asfarasthesubject-mattercoveredbyitisconcerned(software,da-
tabase and photographs), in particular through the respective Directives issued, but
also in recentyears,on thebasisof several judgmentsof theCourtof Justiceof the
EuropeanUnion (CJEU), including Infopaq,BSA,FootballAssociation,FootballDataco
andPainer.Thisdissertationattempts toevaluate thecontributionof this legislation
andcase lawon theharmonizationofEUcopyright law, the implicationsof thishar-
monizationondomesticlawsofMemberStatessuchastheUK,GermanyandGreece
andwhatcouldbefurtherdone, inorderforamoresubstantialharmonizationtobe
achieved,possiblythroughauniformlawoncopyright,especiallyaftertheentryinto
force of the Lisbon Treaty Reform,whichmakes an EU Regulation on copyright law
seemmorefeasiblethaneverbefore.
Keywords:Copyright;Harmonization;Originality;Directives;CJEU
-II-
Preface
Beforeyouliesthedissertation“OriginalityunderEUCopyrightLaw”whichwaswrit-
tenaspartoftheMAinArt,LawandEconomyatInternationalHellenicUniversity.
TheprojectfocusesonthecriterionoftheoriginalityinEUcopyrightlegislationand
thecaselawoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice(ECJ),asakeyfactoroftheharmoniza-
tion process of the copyright legislation acrossMember States of theUnionwhich
comestobridgethegapbetweenthetwodifferentsystems,thosebeingtheciviland
common lawtraditionsexisting in theunion,whicharealsoanalyzed. Itprovidesa
thoroughhistoricaloverviewofthisstillon-goingharmonizationprocesswhilefocus-
ingandanalyzinghowitisaccomplishedthroughbothspecificEUDirectivesoncopy-
rightlawandsomeimportantdecisionsoftheECJonthematter,theeffectsofthis
harmonizationon thedifferent legalordersofMemberStatesandwhat the future
mayholdforEUcopyrightlaw.
Iwould like to thankmy supervisorDr. Irini Stamatoudi for her excellent guidance
andsupportduringthisprocess,withoutwhosecooperationIwouldnothavebeen
abletoconductthisanalysis.
Ihopeyouenjoyyourreading.
AikateriniPilichou
Athens,October2017
-3-
Contents
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................Ι
PREFACE...................................................................................................................ΙΙ
CONTENTS................................................................................................................3
1.INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................5
2.THEEUROPEANLANDSCAPEBEFORE“AUTHOR’SOWNINTELLECTUALCREATION”
DOCTRINE.................................................................................................................6
2.1.THECIVILLAWTRADITION..........................................................................................9
2.2.THECOMMONLAWTRADITION.................................................................................10
3.THECRITERIONOFORIGINALITYINEUCOPYRIGHTLAW....................................13
3.1.THESOFTWAREDIRECTIVE(91/250/EC)....................................................................14
3.2.THEDATABASEDIRECTIVE(96/9/EC).........................................................................18
3.3.THETERMSDIRECTIVE(2006/116/EC)......................................................................20
4.THE“HORIZONTAL”JUDICIARYHARMONIZATIONOFTHEORIGINALITYSTANDARD
.........................................................................................................................22
4.1.INFOPAQINTERNATIONALA/SV.DANSKEDAGBLADESFORENING(C-5/08).......................23
4.2. BEZPECNOSTNI SOFTWAROVA ASOCIATE – SVAZ SOFTWAROVE OCHRANY V. MINISTERSTVO
KULTURY(C-393/09)...................................................................................................24
4.3. FOOTBAL ASSOCIATION PREMIER LEAGUE LTD V. QC LEISURE AND KAREN MURPHY V. MEDIA
PROTECTIONSERVICESLTD(C-403/08&C-429/08)..........................................................25
4.4.EVA-MARIAPAINERV.STANDARDVERLAGSGMBH(C-145/10)........................................27
4.5.FOOTBALLDATACOLTDV.YAHOO!UKLTD(C-145/10).................................................28
5. SELECTIVE ISSUES ON THE IMPACT OF THE ECJ CASE LAW ON MEMBER STATE
DOMESTICLAWS.....................................................................................................30
-4-
6.CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................35
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................1
-5-
1.Introduction
Themaingoalofthisdissertationistoprovideafullanalysisonthecriterionoforigi-
nalityofworksthatcanandshouldbeprotectedundertheEUcopyrightlawandhow
thiscriterionisusedbyboththeUnion’slegislationandtheCourtofJusticeoftheEu-
ropeanUnioninanattempttowardsafurtherandmoretightharmonizationofcopy-
right lawacrossMemberStateswhich first startedat theendof the1980’sandhas
sincethenbeenacceleratedandisstillongoing.Matters,suchastheexactmeaningof
originality, especially that of itsmore commonly acceptedwording as the ‘’author’s
ownintellectualcreation’’, itsdifferentdimensionwithinthecontextofthedifferent
legaltraditions intheUnionandthescaleandextentof itsvalidityregardingvarious
types ofworks, as this is outlined in Directives 91/250/EEC (Software Directive), Di-
rective 96/9/EC (DatabaseDirective) andDirective 2006/116/EC (Copyright TermDi-
rective,with regard tophotographs )aswellas inmilestone judgmentsof theCJEU,
suchasInfopaq,BSA,FootballAssociation,FootballDatacoandPainer1,areaddressed
inthisthesis.
Another importantaspectofthisessayistoexaminehowthisharmonizedoriginality
standard,ifitcanindeedbeconsideredassuch,hasalreadyaffectedandwillcontinue
toaffectandreshapethenationaljurisdictionsofspecificMemberStatesandespecial-
lythoseoftheUK,whichhasbeenaffectedthemost,GreeceandGermany,examined
hereby,andifithasorwillintheendbeabletominimize,ifnoteliminate,thediffer-
encestracedbetweenthetwoexistinglegaltraditionsoncopyrightlawwithintheEU,
thesebeingthecivillawtraditionadoptedincontinentalEuropeandthecommonlaw
1 See Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening, Case C-393/09Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v.Ministerstvo kultury, Joined Cases C-403/08andC-429/08FootballAssociationPremierLeagueLtd,NetMedHellasSA,MultichoiceHellasSAvQCLeisure,DavidRichardson,AVStationplc,MalcolmChamberlain,MichaelMadden,SRLeisureLtdPhilipGeorgeCharlesHoughton,DerekOwenandKarenMurphyvMediaProtectionServicesLtd,CaseC-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard VerlagsGmbH, Case C-604/10 Football Dataco Ltd v. Yahoo!UKLtd.
-6-
oftheUKandIreland,onbothofwhichahistoricaloverviewandtheircurrentstatus
willbeprovidedinthefollowingparagraphs.
Lastly,specificconclusionsandproposalsarepinpointed,regardingtheevolutionand
future trackof copyright law in theEuropeanUnionandwhether it should continue
beingharmonizedbothverticallyandhorizontally, that is throughDirectivesand the
caselawoftheESCJrespectively,ortheEUshouldconsidermovingtowardstheadop-
tion of a common Regulation on copyright law and all relating rights and matters.
Couldthelatterpossiblyprovetobeamoreeffectiveinstrumentandatlastunifycop-
yright lawsof theEUstatesbysolving the issueof territorialityofcopyright lawand
thusboosttheunion’scapacitytoproducemoreoriginalworksandprotectthembet-
terintoday’sinternationalfieldofcopyrightwhichconstantlygetsmorecomplicated
andisdeeplyinterconnectedwiththehighlydigitalizedworldthatwelivein?Theorig-
inalitystandardanditsharmonizedadoptionwithintheEUiscertainlynotapanacea
toall thecurrentanomaliesofcopyright lawbut isontherighttracktobecomethe
mostdecisivefactortothecreationofamoremodern,flexibleandmorecompetitive
commonEUcopyrightlaw,abletohelpEuropebecomethemajorworldplayerinthe
digital economy which nowadays provides a vast spectrum of copyright subject-
matter,asthisisalreadysetasoneofthemaingoalsoftheUnioninthe2015docu-
mentoftheEuropeanCommissionwiththetitle“AdigitalSingleMarketstrategyfor
Europe”.2
2.TheEuropeanLandscapebefore“Author’sown intellectualcreation”
doctrine
Originalityisundoubtedlythecornerstoneofcopyrightlaw.Withoutoriginalitythereis
nowork,nocreation.Itisthemajortoolthathasalwaysbeenusedinordertobeas-
sessed if awork isworthyof protectionunder copyright law.Onlyworks that show
2SeeAdigitalsinglestrategyforEurope,COM(15)192,final,2.4pp.6-7.
-7-
someminimumamountof thisattributeattractprotection3.Originality,especiallyas
wasseenintheromanticage,correspondstotheindependentcreativityoftheauthor
asreflectedinhisorherliteraryorartisticcreationandmakeshiscreationworthyof
protectionbycopyrightlaw.Authorshipisanimportantaspectofcreativityandorigi-
nality,asit‘’…playsafundamentalroleintermsofrecognitionand,assuchindeter-
miningthescopeofthemoralrightsauthorsenjoyintheircreations’’4.Though,assig-
nificantasitmaybe,thereisstillnoclearandconcretedefinitionofitstruemeaning
anddimension.Upuntiltoday,individualcopyrightlawshaveintentionallyavoidedto
produceacementeddefinitiononoriginality,asthistaskhasbeenundertakenbyna-
tionallegislaturesandcourts,withthelatterattributingtotheconceptamoreflexible
definition which serves their national interests best and suits their cultures better.
Thus, the fieldofcopyright law isandhasalwaysbeenopentonewtypesofworks,
whichneedtobeprotectedbyitanddonothavetobenewornovelinordertogain
thatprotection,asithappenswithinventionsinpatentlaw,whereideasandnotcrea-
tiveexpressionareprotected. It isnecessary tobeunderstoodthataworkdoesnot
havetobenewtobeconsideredoriginal.Originality istoagreatextentasubjective
concept,asithastodowiththepersonalcontributionofthecreator,hiscreativeex-
pressionandtheindividualityofhisworkwhereastheelementofthe‘’new’’issome-
thingthatcanbeascertainedobjectively,bytheexistenceornot,ofasimilarintellec-
tualcreation.If,forexampleapaintermakesaportraitofapersonforthefirsttime,
thenhisworkisbothnewandoriginal.Iflateranotherpaintermakesanotherportrait
ofthesameperson,thenhisworkisoriginal,butnotnew.Bothworksareprotectedas
originalundercopyrightlaw.
Wehavetopinpointthattilltodaytheoriginalityrequirementasitsharmonizedinter-
pretation of ‘the author’s own intellectual creation’ is clearlymentioned only in Di-
rective 91/250/EEC (Software Directive) and its later codified version Directive
2009/24/EC,Directive96/9/EC(Database)andDirective2006/116/EC(CopyrightTerm
3SeeMargoni,T2016,‘TheharmonizationofEUcopyrightlaw:theoriginalitystandard’,p.3.4SeeRosati,E2013,Originality inEUcopyright: fullharmonizationthroughcase law,Edward
ElgarEditions,UKandUSA,p.58.
-8-
Directive,with regard tophotographs). This interpretationoforiginality tends tobe-
comeincreasingly‘popular’amongcourtsandlawmakersacrosstheEUandisalready
thequintessentialofthelegalharmonizationofEUcopyrightlaw.Butithasnotalways
beenlikethis.
Afirstvaguementionofthestandardoforiginalityasarequirementfortheprotection
ofaworkbycopyright lawcanbefoundoninternational level, intheBerneConven-
tionfortheProtectionofArtisticandLiteraryworksof1886,whichcanbeconsidered
tobetheoldestconventiononcopyrightlaw.InArticle2(1),itstatesthat‘’Theexpres-
sion‘literaryandartisticworks’shallincludeeveryproductionintheliterary,scientific
andartisticdomain,whatevermaybe themodeor formof itsexpression,…’’. It then
usesthewordoriginalinArticle2(3),whichstatesthat‘’Translations,adaptations,ar-
rangementsofmusicandotheralterationsofa literaryorartisticwork shall bepro-
tectedasoriginalworkswithoutprejudicetothecopyrightintheoriginalwork’’.More
interesting,asanotionoforiginalityisthephrasingofArticle2(5)whichstipulatesthat
‘’Collectionsofliteraryorartisticworkssuchasencyclopediasandanthologieswhich,
by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual
creationsshallbeprotectedassuch,withoutprejudicetothecopyrightineachofthe
worksformingpartofsuchcollections’’,awordingmeaningthataworkprotectedby
theBerneConventionmustbeanintellectualcreation,itmustthereforebearoriginali-
ty.
On the level of thenational jurisdictions of theMember States, it shall be said that
therealwayshasbeenadichotomyoverthemeaninganddefinitionoforiginality,as
thethresholdofcopyrightprotectionofworks inthesecountries,andasaresultthe
protectionprovidedbycopyrightlawisofadifferentgradeandintendedfordifferent
amountandtypeofworksandculturalcreations.Asalreadymentioned inthe intro-
duction,therearetwomaintraditionsoncopyrightlawinEurope,eachwithadiffer-
entphilosophicalbackground,asanalyzedbelow.
-9-
2.1.Thecivillawtradition
Thelegalsystems,whichhaveadoptedthistradition,includingpartiallythatofGreece,
havebeen influencedby theFrenchRevolutionand theEnlightenmentandconsider
theauthor,thecreatorofthework,asthecenteroftheirsubjectiveapproach.Theau-
thor’sworks areprotectedexactlybecause they comeas a result ofhis creativeex-
pressionandcreativity.InFrance,theworkneedstobeanoeuvredl’esprit5,awork
of themind in order to beprotected and recognisedby the law. The Italian law re-
quiresthatworksofingenuitymusthaveacreativecharacter6.Thisdroitd’auteur(au-
thor’slaw)traditionseemstobereallyclosetothe‘author’sownintellectualcreation’,
as, for example phrases like ‘persönliche geistige Schöpfungen’7(personal intellectual
creations),alreadyexistentinGermanyattheendofthenineteenthcenturyandthe
identical‘…dasssiedasErgebnisdereigenengeistigenShöpfungihresUrheberssind8’,
canbefoundinGermanLawofintellectualproperty.Themainfocusisonthediptych
author-work,withthe latterbearingasignificanttraceoftheauthor’smindandper-
sonality, his personal touch. An author cannot be separated fromhiswork and vice
versa.Anauthormustcontrolhisworksbyhavingrightsonthem,whichonlybelongto
himandcannevertransferallofthem.AstronginfluenceoftheRomanlawofdomini-
um,anabsoluterightoverpropertyandtheCartesianphilosophy,whichregardsthe
worksofthemindassuperiortothoseofthebody,seemtounderpinthewholedroit
d’auteursystem9.Asmuchasremuneration,financialbenefitsandrewards,asexclu-
siverights,aresignificanttocopyrightlawandespeciallytocommonlawtradition,as
theyareastrongincentiveforartiststoproduceculturalworks,recognitionandlabel-
ingofthemakeroftheworkasanindependent,creativeunit,moralrightsareaswell,
andatthispointiswherethemeaningofauthorshipplaysanimportantroleinthecivil
lawtraditionandinthegeneralfieldofcopyright.Someoneinsupportofthissystem
couldsaythatoriginalitynecessarilypresupposesthattheprotectableworkmustde-
5Ibid.,p.71.6Ibid.,p.72.SeealsoMargoni,T2016,‘TheharmonizationofEUcopyrightlaw:theoriginality
standard’,p.6.7Ibid.7,p.72.8Ibid.7.,p.74.9SeeTorremans,P2007,Copyright law:ahandbookofcontemporaryresearch,EdwardElgar
Editions,UKandUSA,p.21.
-10-
rive from the personality of the author, otherwise, even scientific theories and re-
searchwouldbeprotectedby intellectualproperty laws.Butexactlybecausescience
huntsthenaturaltruth,somethingobjectivelyobservablebyeveryone,somethingthat
isoutthere,isnotasubjectmatterofcopyrightlawandprobablyneverwillbe.Some-
onecouldalsosaythatthissubject-orientedcivillawtraditionseemsquiteobsoletein
termsoftheprotectionthatitcanprovidewhenitcomestomodern,morecomplicat-
ed, technicalmechanicallyproducedworks, e.g. databases,where thepersonalityof
themakerismuchhardertobedepictedandsetsahighstandardoforiginalitywhich
leavesmanyworksunprotected.On thismatter, therewillbe furtheranalysis in the
followingsectionsofthisdissertation.
2.2.Thecommonlawtradition
Copyrightasaterm,hasitsrootsinEnglandandWalesbackin1556,whentheCrown,
initsattempttocontroldisseminationofprintedtexts,duetotheboomoftypography
experiencedatthetime, introducedaregistrationsystemofpublishedworks,whose
managementwasgrantedtoaLondonguildcalledtheStationer’sCompany.So,literal-
ly,copyrightoriginallymeanttherighttothecopyandnottherighttostopathirdpar-
ty copying the author’s work. Decades later and after, what at the timewas called
press–piracy,hastakenhugedimensions, followingthereleaseof aBill fortheEn-
couragementofLearningandforSecuringthePropertyofCopiesofBookstotheRight-
fulOwners,theStatuteofAnnepassedintolawin1710,becomingthefirstcopyright
statuteofthemodernworld.Itisobviousthatcopyrightstartedmoreasarightofan
economicandsocialdimensionandperspective,ratherthanonewithanaimtopro-
tectthenaturalrightsoftheowner.Ofcourse,thisorientationstillunderpinsthecop-
yrightlawintheUK.Centurieslater,theCopyrightActof1911wasadoptedandpro-
vided for theprotectionofauthor’sworkswithout formality.Morerecent important
copyrightactsintheUKarethe1956Actandthe,stillineffect,CopyrightDesignsand
PatentsAct (CDPA) of 1988. The latter includes an exhaustive categorizationof pro-
tectableworks,whenoriginal, suchas literaryworks,musicalworks, drama, art and
computerprograms.ApeculiarityoftheUKcopyrightlawisthefactthatcopyrightis
alsograntedtotapes,records,films,broadcasts,cableprogramsandeditionsofbooks,
-11-
withouttheprerequisiteoforiginality.Atthispoint,adistinctionbetweenthemessage
andthemediumcanbenoted,thoughnotofficiallystatedintheCDPAandmorespe-
cificallyinSection1(a),(b),(c)oftheCDPAwhichstipulatesthat:Copyrightisaprop-
ertyrightwhichsubsists…inthefollowingdescriptionsofwork–(a)originalliterary,
dramatic,musicalorartisticworks(b)soundrecordings,films,broadcastsorcablepro-
grams,and(c) thetypographicalarrangementofpublishededitions.Andthisdistinc-
tion leads to a further requirementof copyright protection in theUK. The sufficient
‘skill,labourandjudgment’whichtheauthorhasinvestedinhisworkmustberecord-
edinwritingorotherwise,itmustbetransferredontoamediumofexpressioninthe
physicalworld.
TheUK copyright lawprotects awork as original, simply based on the fact that the
former ‘…mustnotbecopiedfromanotherwork-thatitshouldoriginatefromtheau-
thor’10andnotbecauseitbearsanyaspectofhispersonalityor individuality,as it is
requiredbythecivil lawsystem,thusprovidingalooserandsomewhatmoreflexible
originalitystandard.Itsuffices,ifthecreatormadehisworkbyinvestingonithisper-
sonallabour,skill,taste,knowledgeandjudgmentanddidnotsimply‘stole’itorcop-
iedit,directlyor indirectly,fromsomeoneelse.Theworksurelydoesnothavetobe
‘novel’ to attainprotection.Moreover, this personal ‘skill and labour’, this ‘sweatof
thebrow’,asithasbeencharacterized,shallnotbeextremeoroutoftheordinary,but
justabovetheminimal,the insubstantial.UKCopyright lawmainlyprovidestheright
to theprohibitionof copyingof awork. Τhephrase ‘what isworth copying isworth
protecting’11fullysummarizestheviewofcommoncopyrightlawonoriginality.Labour
hasbeenatthecenterofcopyrightprotectionintheUKandnotcreativity.Although,
intheyearspriortotheInfopaqdecisionoftheCJEU,theskill,labourandjudgmentof
themaker shouldbe ‘sufficient’ inorder forhimnot tobe regarded thathemerely
copiesandsocausesan infringementofthecopyright lawandthetraditional ‘’SSJL’’
(sufficient,skill,labourandjudgment’’)wasbroadlyrecognizedbycourtsofthecoun-
try,especiallywhenitcomestocollectiveworks,suchasdatabases.Thisapproachhas
10SeeRosati,E2013,Originality inEUcopyright: fullharmonizationthroughcase law,EdwardElgarEditions,UKandUSA,p.77.
11SeeMarinos,M2004,CopyrightLaw,2ndedn,SakkoulasEditions,AthensandKomotini,p.76.
-12-
enabledtheprotectionofmanymorenewtypesofworksandcreations,bothcreative
andjustskilldemanding,thanthestrictercontinentaldroitd’auteurdoes.Worksthat
couldotherwisebeprotectedbylawsofunfaircompetition,whicharenon-existentin
theUK,areprotectedbycopyright. Inthecopyrightlawofthecommonlawsystem,
thework is seen as a commodity, a product, as something only of economic value.
Whoeverundertakestheriskofreproductionandeconomicexploitationoftheprod-
uct-creation,alsohas the right to receive theeconomicbenefitsof thisexploitation.
TheproduceranddistributorisofmoreinteresttotheUKcopyrightlawthanthecrea-
toroftheworkandhisnaturalrightsandthisissomethingeasilyconcludedbythelack
ofmoralrightsofthecreator,safeguardinghimagainstthepublisherandproducerin
general, inBritish law.Computerprogramsandcollectionsοf itinerariesormeteoro-
logicalfactsonelectronicdatabasesaremucheasiertobeprotectedunderUKcopy-
right law. Although, this flexibility of accepting new, somewhat odd products under
copyright protectionmay sometimes prove problematic and eroding to its essence,
especiallyinregardwiththetypicalcreationsofcopyright.
Fromtheabove,itisobviousthatthedifferencesbetweenthetwoexistingsystemsof
copyright lawwithin the EU can only be seen as fragmenting and disruptive to the
cause of a common andmore functional EU copyright law. Τhere is the need for a
commonapproximateoriginalitystandard,whichtranspiresboththeEUcopyrightleg-
islationandthe jurisprudenceoftheCJEU,willoverarchthecurrentdivergencesand
pavethewaytowardsamoreharmonizedEUcopyrightlaw.
3.ThecriterionoforiginalityinEUCopyrightLaw
SincethecreationoftheEU,previouslyknownastheEuropeanEconomicCommunity
(ECC)withtheadoptionoftheTreatyofRomein1957,copyrightlawwasnotconsid-
eredbytheprimaryECClawasafieldinneedofregulation,asitthenhadamorecul-
tural dimension rather than an economic one. For decades, the Berne Convention,
whichallMemberStateswerethenamemberof,seemedtobeadequate. Towards
the end of the 1980’s, the political, legal and technological landscapes were ripe
-13-
enoughforadiscussiononthereformofcopyrightlawsacrossEUcountriesandafter
years of inactivity, the Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology
(GPCCT) (EuropeanCommission1988)waspublished.TheGPCCTacknowledged that
newmeasureshadtobeadoptedinthefieldofcopyrightduetothemanyrapid,soci-
oeconomicandtechnologicalchangesthatwereunderwayatthetimeandspecifically
in the context of, as its exact reading stated: ‘’….the profound changeswhich have
beenoccurringintheworldeconomy,involvingastheydoimportantstructuraladapta-
tionsnotleastintheindustrializedcountries’’.12Itcontinuedbysayingthat:‘’ Insum,
the growing economic importance of the industries needing copyright protection
againstreadymisappropriationoftheirproducts,particularlybycopying,hasnaturally
produced pressure for themodernization of existing copyright protection systems at
bothnationalandCommunitylevel’’13.Despitetheabove,theCommissiondidnotre-
ally consider aneedof anattenuationof thedisparitiesbetween thenational copy-
rightlaws,asafactoroftheproperfunctioningoftheInternalMarket,whichwasits
primarygoal,especially regarding the traditional copyright subjectmatter, as it stat-
ed:’’Manyissuesofcopyright law,donotneedtobesubjectofactionatCommunity
level.SinceaIlMemberStatesadheretotheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLit-
eraryandArtistic,WorksandtotheUniversalCopyrightConvention,acertainfunda-
mentalconvergenceoftheirLawshasalreadybeenachieved.Manyofthedifferences
thatremainhavenosignificantimpactonthefunctioningoftheinternalmarketorthe
Community’s economic competitiveness… The Community approach should therefore
bemarkedbyaneed toaddressCommunityproblems.Any temptation to engage in
lawreformfor itsownsakeshouldberesisted”14.ThisagendaoftheGreenPaper ig-
nitedrenewedawarenessonthematterandafewyearslatersparkedaprocessofa
vertical harmonizationduring the 1990’swhich sought to regulate only specific sub-
ject-matterand led toseveralDirectives,ofwhich, thoseharmonizing thecopyright
protectionofsoftware,databasesandthetermofthatprotection,areexaminedhere-
by,alwaysinconnectionwiththeoriginalitystandardsetbythem.
12 SeeGreen Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology: copyright issues requiringimmediateaction,COM(88)172,final,1.1.4,p.10.
13Ibid.,1.2.5,p.11.14Ibid.,1.4.9,p.7,1.4.10,p.8.
-14-
3.1.TheSoftwareDirective(91/250/ECC)
Itwasclearbytheorientationofthe1988GreenPapermentionedabovethatitpriori-
tizedtoregulatethecopyrightprotectionofnewtechnologies,as itcanbereadin it
that:‘’…theCommissionconcludedthatadirectiveonthelegalprotectionofcomputer
programsisanecessarystepforthecompletionoftheinternalmarket’’andthat‘’the
creationofaEuropeaninformationservicesmarket,currentlydividedby juridicaland
linguistic barriers, is of prime importance’’15. It also acknowledged the fact that in
some countries such as France and Germany further requirements ought to be ful-
filled,thanusuallyexpectedforotherworks,fortheprotectionofcomputerprograms
andthiscouldharmtheInternalMarket.16Thus,itcameasnosurprise,followingthese
conclusions(Recitals3,4and5 inthepreambleoftheDirectiveremainonthesame
spirit)17,wheninMay1991,Directive91/250/EEConthelegalprotectionofcomputer
programswasadopted, as the firstof the ‘first generation’Directivesof the vertical
harmonizationprocess. Itwas the first time that the term ‘author’s own intellectual
creation’appearedinanEUcopyrightlegaltextandthisastheonlycriterionoforigi-
nality,whichshouldbeapplied,leavingnoroomforothercriteria,incompliancewith
Article1(3)18.Furthermore,inRecital8oftheDirective,asanadditionalsafeguard,itis
explicitlymentionedthat: ‘’Whereas, inrespectofthecriteriatobeapplied indeter-
miningwhetherornotacomputerprogramisanoriginalwork,notestsastothequali-
tativeoraestheticmeritsoftheprogramshouldbeapplied’’.Atthispoint, itisworth
noting that, despite the aforementioned preclusion of other criteria, aiming at the
15Ibid.,5.4.1,p.180,6.2.1,p.207.16Ibid.,5.6.3,p.187.17SeeDirective91/250/EEConthelegalprotectionofcomputerprograms,Recital3statesthat:
‘’Whereascomputerprogramsareplayinganincreasinglyimportantroleinabroadrangeofindustriesandcomputerprogramtechnologycanaccordinglybeconsideredasbeingof fundamental importancefortheCommunity'sindustrialdevelopment;’’,Recital4statesthat:“WhereascertaindifferencesinthelegalprotectionofcomputerprogramsofferedbythelawsoftheMemberStateshavedirectandnega-tiveeffectson the functioningof the commonmarketas regards computerprogramsand suchdiffer-encescouldwellbecomegreaterasMemberStatesintroducenewlegislationonthissubject;’’,Recital5states that: ‘’Whereasexistingdifferenceshaving sucheffectsneed tobe removedandnewonespre-ventedfromarising,whiledifferencesnotadverselyaffectingthefunctioningofthecommonmarkettoasubstantialdegreeneednotberemovedorpreventedfromarising;’’.
18 Ibid.,Article1(3)states that:“Acomputerprogramshallbeprotected if it isoriginal in thesensethatitistheauthor'sownintellectualcreation.Noothercriteriashallbeappliedtodetermineitseligibilityforprotection’’.
-15-
abolishmentofthedifferent,sometimesextremelystrictcriteriauseduntiltheninthe
variousMemberStatese.g.the‘aboveaveragecreativeeffort’oftheprogrammer in
the 1985 Inkasso-Programm decision of the German Federal Supreme Court 19, this
newharmonizedstandardoforiginalityforcomputerprograms,entailsitselfaqualita-
tivetest,asitrequiresthataworkhastopossessaminimumdegreeof‘creativity’,a
concept closely related toquality. In general, though,most jurisdictionsdonot take
intoaccounttheintrinsicaesthetic,artisticvalueorimportanceofaworktoassessifit
isoriginalandprotectablebycopyright.Lawandcourtsshouldnotengagethemselves
withthiskindofjudgments,whicharebasedunavoidablyontheirownpersonalstimu-
li,thuscharacterizedbysubjectivity.MummeryLJheldthat‘[a]workmaybecomplete
rubbishandutterlyworthless,butcopyrightprotectionmaybeavailableforit,justasit
is for the greatmasterpieces of imaginative literature, art andmusic.’ 20 It could be
easilydeductedthattheapplicationofthiscommonoriginalitystandardoncomputer
programs seems somewhat problematic, due to the distinctiveness of the character
and ‘mechanical’ formoftheseworks.Theprogrammerusesofcourseprogramming
languages, algorithms and other standard patterns of informatics but has a relative
freedom of creative space aswell. Theway he chooses to design and build the se-
quencesofactionsteps,whichtheprogramfollowstoreachthefinaltask,whichitis
meanttoaccomplish,relytotallyuponhisskill,talentandcreativity.Acomputerpro-
grammayseemasa‘onepiece’worktotheaverageuser,butinrealityitconsistsofa
multitude of elements uponwhich the intellectual effort of the creator is reflected.
Therefore,inpractice,dependingonthecaseathand,thecourtsareobligedtotryand
detectthoseelements,deemthewholeworkasoriginalandprovideitwithcopyright
protection.Thephrasingoftheoriginalitystandardclearlyreflectsanattemptofcom-
biningelementsofthecivillawandcommonlawtraditions,referredtobeforeinthis
essay. ‘Intellectual creation’ corresponds to the continental approach whereas ‘au-
thor’s own’ to thatof theUKand Ireland, in themeaning that theworkmust come
19 SeeGreen Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology: copyright issues requiringimmediateaction,COM(88)172,finalGreenPaper5.6.3,5.6.4,p.188.
20SeeGompel,SV&Lavik,2013,‘Quality,merit,aestheticsandpurpose:aninquiryintoEUcop-yrightlaw’seschewalofothercriteriathanoriginality’,RevueInternationaleduDroitd’Auteur(RIDA);AmsterdamLawSchoolResearchPaperno.2013-51;InstituteforInformationLaw,ResearchPaperno.2013-03,pp.14-15.
-16-
fromitsauthorandnotsomeoneelse, that is,notobeacopy. It is thefirst trueat-
tempt,followedbytheothertwoverticallyharmonizingdirectives,ofEUcopyrightleg-
islationtofindacommonground,afinebalancebetweentheoriginalitythresholdsset
bythetwosystems.Thefinalphrasingofthenewuniformstandardforsoftwarewas
basedonaprevioustermincludedintheDirective87/54/EEConthelegalprotectionof
topographiesofsemiconductorproducts,whichwas‘creator’sownintellectualeffort’.
TheGreenPaperof1988hadalreadyproposedtowardstheadoptionofasimilarterm
for computer programsbut the final termwas first included in the Initial Proposal’s
ExplanatoryMemorandumandlaterintheECAmendedProposal,beforeappearingin
theDirective.21
Asstatedinthe2000ECReportontheImplementationoftheComputerProgramDi-
rective (EuropeanCommission2000), thenewharmonized standardoforiginality set
by thedirective ‘has required12Member States to lower the threshold for granting
protection and the remaining three to “lift the bar”22. For example, Germany had
ceased to use its former higher standard, the ‘Schöpfungshöhe’, literally ‘creative
height’,whiletheUKhadnotyetimplementedthestandardoftheDirectiveandthis
was something that could prove to be disruptive, taking into account the lower
threshold of protection underUK copyright law, i.e. ‘skill and labour’ 23. Council Di-
rective 91/250/EEC (Recital 6)24 gives copyright protection to computer programs as
literaryworks (whetherwritten in sourceorobject code)within themeaningof the
BerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks(ParisAct,1971)(Ar-
ticle2.1)25. Article4oftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization(WIPO)Copyright
21 SeeGreen Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology: copyright issues requiringimmediateaction,COM(88)172,final,5.6.24,p.196.
22SeeReportontheimplementationandeffectsofDirective91/250/EEConthelegalprotec-tionofcomputerprograms,COM(00)199,final,p.6.
23Ibid.,pp.8,10.24SeeDirective91/250/EEConthelegalprotectionofcomputerprograms,Recital6statesthat:
‘’WhereastheCommunity'slegalframeworkontheprotectionofcomputerprogramscanaccordinglyinthe first instancebe limited toestablishing thatMemberStates shouldaccordprotection to computerprogramsunder copyright lawas literaryworksand, further, to establishingwhoandwhat shouldbeprotected,theexclusiverightsonwhichprotectedpersonsshouldbeabletorelyinordertoauthorizeorprohibitcertainactsandforhowlongtheprotectionshouldapply;’’.
25SeeBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks(ParisAct,1971),Arti-cle2.1statesthat:‘’Theexpression‘literaryandartisticworks’shallincludeeveryproductionintheliter-
-17-
Treaty(WCT)usesthesameformulationastheDirective.Suchprovisionsarealsoona
parwithArticle10(1)oftheAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualProp-
ertyRights(TRIPsAgreement)26.Lastly,accordingtothe2000ReportoftheCommis-
sion on the implementation and effects of this Directive, its implementation was
deemedas‘satisfactory’,itsresults‘favorable’anditseffects‘beneficial’,withthecon-
clusion that there is no need to revisit its substantive copyright provisions at that
time27.Ofcourse,manyyearshavepassedsincethenandopinionsmaydifferonthe
correctnessoftheaforementionedascertainments.
3.2.TheDatabaseDirective(96/9/EC)
Calling for ‘investment inallMember States inadvanced informationprocessing sys-
tems’andbasedontheargumentthatupuntilthen,differencesinthelegalprotection
ofdatabasesinMemberStates‘havedirectnegativeeffectsonthefunctioningofthe
internalmarket’ and ‘need to be removed’ and that ‘such unharmonized intellectual
property can have the effect of preventing the free movement of goods or services
withintheCommunity’andthat‘databasesareavitaltool inthedevelopmentofan
informationmarketwithin the Community’ , theDirective on the legal protectionof
databaseswasadoptedin199628.InlinewithTRIPs(Art.9),WCT(Art.5)andtheBerne
ary,scientificandartisticdomain,whatevermaybethemodeorformofitsexpression,suchasbooks,pamphletsandotherwritings; lectures,addresses, sermonsandotherworksof the samenature;dra-matic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musicalcompositionswithorwithoutwords;cinematographicworkstowhichareassimilatedworksexpressedbyaprocessanalogoustocinematography;worksofdrawing,painting,architecture,sculpture,engrav-ingandlithography;photographicworkstowhichareassimilatedworksexpressedbyaprocessanalo-gous to photography;works of applied art; illustrations,maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensionalworksrelativetogeography,topography,architectureorscience’’.
26 See the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPs Agree-ment),Article10.1statesthat:’Computerprograms,whetherinsourceorobjectcode,shallbeprotectedasliteraryworksundertheBerneConvention(1971)’’.
27SeeReportontheimplementationandeffectsofDirective91/250/EEConthelegalprotec-tionofcomputerprograms, Brussels,10.04.2000COM(2000)1999final,pp.20-21.
28 DIRECTIVE 96/91/EC on the legal protection of databases, Recital 2 states that: ‘’Whereassuch differences in the legal protection of databases offered by the legislation of theMember Stateshavedirectnegativeeffectsonthefunctioningoftheinternalmarketasregardsdatabasesandinpar-ticularonthe freedomofnaturaland legalpersonstoprovideon-linedatabasegoodsandservicesonthebasisofharmonizedlegalarrangementsthroughouttheCommunity;whereassuchdifferencescouldwell becomemorepronouncedasMember States introducenew legislation in this field,which is nowtakingonanincreasinglyinternationaldimension;‘’,Recital3statesthat:‘’Whereasexistingdifferencesdistortingthefunctioningoftheinternalmarketneedtoberemovedandnewonespreventedfromaris-
-18-
Convention[Art.2(5)]29,theDirectivedoesnotprotectdatabasesas literaryorother
typeofworks,ratherwhatitdoesistorefertothemas‘acollectionofindependent
works,dataorothermaterialsarranged inasystematicormethodicalwayand indi-
viduallyaccessiblebyelectronicorothermeans’. InArticle3(1)of theDirective, it is
madeclearthattherequirementforprotectionissimilartothatalreadydescribedin
theSoftwareDirective,onlythat, inthecaseofdatabases, itregardstheselectionor
arrangement(differentthanthecumulative‘selectionandarrangement’oftheprovi-
sionoftheBerneConvention)oftheircontents.Inthesamearticle,aswellasinRecit-
al16,it isunderlined,onceagain,thatnoothercriteria,suchas‘meritorpurpose’,a
wordingmuchbroaderthanthe‘qualitativeoraestheticmeritsoftheprogram’usedin
the SoftwareDirective, shouldbeused for determining theoriginality of a database
and,asaresult,itseligibilityforcopyrightprotection.Anaesthetictestorotherquali-
tativeevaluationofthedatabase,regardingitsworthorartisticdynamicshouldinno
caseconstituteanindicatorofitsoriginality.Atfirstglance,theapplicationofthehar-
monizedoriginality standard indatabases seemsquiteproblematic.Due to theirna-
ture,aselectronicassortmentsoffacts,likeanthologiesorencyclopediasareinprint,
theyare creations thatusuallyencapsulatemanydifferent,heterogeneouselements
andcontents,whichmaynotattainthesame leveloforiginalityormaynotevenbe
original. To further clarify, the originality standard of the ‘author’s own intellectual
creation’,as it isexpressesverbisstatedinRecital15oftheDirective, isappliedonly
ontheselectionorthearrangementofthecontentsofthedatabaseandthegranted
ing,whiledifferencesnotadverselyaffectingthefunctioningoftheinternalmarketorthedevelopmentofaninformationmarketwithintheCommunityneednotberemovedorpreventedfromarising;’’,Re-cital4statesthat: ‘’Whereascopyrightprotectionfordatabasesexists invaryingformsintheMemberStates according to legislation or case-law, andwhereas, if differences in legislation in the scope andconditionsof protection remainbetween theMember States, suchunharmonized intellectual propertyrightscanhavetheeffectofpreventingthefreemovementofgoodsorserviceswithintheCommunity;’’,Recital9statesthat:‘’WhereasdatabasesareavitaltoolinthedevelopmentofaninformationmarketwithintheCommunity;whereasthistoolwillalsobeofuseinmanyotherfields;’’andRecital10statesthat:‘’Whereastheexponentialgrowth,intheCommunityandworldwide,intheamountofinformationgeneratedandprocessedannuallyinallsectorsofcommerceandindustrycallsforinvestmentinalltheMemberStatesinadvancedinformationprocessingsystems;’’.
29SeeBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks(ParisAct,1971),Arti-cle 2 [5] states that: ‘’Collections of literary or artisticworks such as encyclopaedias and anthologieswhich, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creationsshallbeprotectedassuch,withoutprejudicetothecopyrightineachoftheworksformingpartofsuchcollections’’.
-19-
protectionconcernsonlythestructureofthedatabaseastheexpressionoftheideaof
theauthorandnotitscontentspersewhichcanbemerefactsorideas,notprotected
bycopyright.Article1(2)stipulatesthat:‘Theprotectionshallnotextendtotheircon-
tentsand shall bewithoutprejudice toany rights subsisting in those contents them-
selves’. In databases, the restricted possible degree of creativity and instinct of the
makerisdetectedonaninternallevel,inthedesign,files,sub-files,categoriesandsub-
categoriesofthecollectionandonanexternalone,insearchtoolse.g.thesaurus,di-
rectories and mediums of expression such as texts, images, graphic presentations,
charts and tables, resulting from the creativeness of the author, thus rendering the
wholeprojectoriginalandprotectablebycopyright30.Areasonablequestioniswheth-
er collections of scientific researchdata fulfill the criterionof originality.Due to the
methodicalandtechnicalnatureofscience, littleroomis leftforsubjectiveactionon
thepartofthecollector-researcher.‘…Theauthorcanexerciselittletonocreativityor
originalityinthechoice,sequenceandcombinationofthedatainthecollection.Scien-
tificdatabasesarethereforeinmostcasesnotlikelytomeetthethresholdforcopyright
protection’31.AnaspectoftheDirective,worthyofourattentionisthedouble-tierpro-
tection system,whichwas introducedby it. Inparticular, inArticle732, theDirective
establishedasuigenerisright,asaformofprotectionofthosedatabasesthatdonot
fulfilltheoriginalitystandard,asdescribedabove.Thisrightisapropertyrightandnot
copyright.Itisnotgrantedonthebasisoforiginalityandcanexistindependentlyand
simultaneouslywithcopyrightinthesamedatabase,ifthenecessaryrequirementsare
fulfilledforbothformsofprotection.AccordingtoArticle7,theobjectofitsprotection
is‘…asubstantialinvestmentineithertheobtaining,verificationorpresentationofthe
contents…’ofthedatabase.Withoutthisright,ifsomeoneextractedthecontentsofa
databaseand left its structure (protectedbycopyright) intact, therewouldbeno in-
30See Synodinou, T 2004, The legal protection of databases, Sakkoulas Editions, Athens andThessaloniki,pp.157,159.
31SeeGuibault,LandWiebe,A2013,“Safetobeopen:studyontheprotectionofresearchdataandrecommendationsforaccessandusage”,UniversitatsverlagGottingen,2.1,p.21.
32DIRECTIVE96/9/EConthe legalprotectionofdatabases,Article7.1.statesthat: ‘’MemberStatesshallprovideforarightforthemakerofadatabasewhichshowsthattherehasbeenqualitativelyand/orquantitativelyasubstantialinvestmentineithertheobtaining,verificationorpresentationofthecontentstopreventextractionand/orre-utilizationofthewholeorofasubstantialpart,evaluatedquali-tativelyand/orquantitatively,ofthecontentsofthatdatabase’’.
-20-
fringement,whichwouldbeagainstthespiritofthelaw.Itwasalsoakindofcounter-
balancefortheUKand Ireland,wherethe lowercriterionofthe ‘sweatofthebrow’
seemednottobeapplicableanymore.33Lastly,tobroachtheimpactofthedirective’s
implementation,according toasubmissionby theEuropeanAssociationofDirectory
andDatabasePublishers(EADP)33therehasbeen“asignificantincreaseinthesupply
ofandinformationthroughdatabasessincetheDirectivewasadopted”34. Inthisfirst
evaluationof theDirective, it isalsonoted that: ‘…theharmonized levelof copyright
protectionfor“original”databaseswhichhasnotcausedmajorproblemssofar’35.
3.3.TheTermsDirective(2006/116/EC)
The Term Directive of 1993 (Directive 93/98/EEC) was the second one adopted to-
wardsaverticalharmonizationoftheoriginalitystandard. In2006, itwascodifiedby
Directive2006/116/EEC,currentlyineffect,onthetermofprotectionofcopyrightand
certainrelatedrights.BeforetheadoptionoftheoriginalDirective,ithasbeennoted
that theminimum 25-year old protection granted to photographic works by Article
7(4)oftheBerneConventionwhilegrantingtherestoftheworks50yearspostmor-
tem auctoris (pma), was discriminating and that the term of protection inMember
Stateswasconsiderable,withsomehavingamultipleprotectionsystem,e.g.Germany,
Spainand Italy.36Recital17of theoriginalDirectiveexpresses thenecessityofahar-
monizedoriginalitystandardforphotographicworks,whichduetotheirartisticorpro-
fessional character, areof importancewithin the internalmarket, furtherpromoting
thiswaytheharmonizationofthetermofprotectioninEUcopyright law,whichwas
themainpurposeofthatlegalinitiative37.Itseemsthattheharmonizationoftheorigi-
33See First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of database, Commission2005,Brussels,2.1,p.8.
34Ibid,4.2.3,p.18.35Ibid,6.1,p.25.36SeeProposalforaCouncilDirectiveharmonizingthetermofprotectionofcopyrightandcer-
tainrelatedrights,COM(92)33,final-SYN395Brussels,23March1992,I.A.8.p.7.37SeeDIRECTIVE93/98/EECharmonizingthetermofprotectionofcopyrightandcertainrelat-
edrights,Recital17ofthepreamblestatesthat:‘’WhereastheprotectionofphotographsintheMem-berStatesisthesubjectofvaryingregimes;whereasinordertoachieveasufficientharmonizationofthetermofprotectionofphotographicworks,inparticularofthosewhich,duetotheirartisticorprofession-alcharacter,areofimportancewithintheinternalmarket,itisnecessarytodefinetheleveloforiginalityrequiredinthisDirective;whereasaphotographicworkwithinthemeaningoftheBerneConventionisto
-21-
nalitystandardforphotographswasnottheultimategoalratherasideeffect,an‘ac-
cident’,asithasbeenpointedout38.Partofthephrasingwas,asfollows:‘…;whereasa
photographic work within themeaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered
originalifitistheauthor'sownintellectualcreationreflectinghispersonality,noother
criteriasuchasmeritorpurposebeingtakenintoaccounttheprotectionofotherpho-
tographs shouldbe left tonational law; ‘, keeping in linewith thedefinitionalready
provided inArticle1(3)of theComputerProgramsDirective. In the latest textof the
codifiedversion,inRecital16,thereisnoreferencetoartisticorprofessionalcharacter
butishasbeenestablishedthatthisomissiondoesnotimplyanychangeoftheorigi-
nalitystandardof‘theauthor’sownintellectualcreation’.Although,theadditionofthe
phrase‘…reflectinghispersonality’mightbeconsideredasatougheningofthestand-
ard set out by the Software andDatabaseDirectives39.According toArticle 6of the
codifiedversion,photographs,ascopyrightableworks,ifmeetingtheoriginalitystand-
ard,deserve the same termprotectionof lifeof theauthorplus seventyyearspma,
granted to all otherworks, as stated in Article 1 of the same Directive. It also pre-
cludes,astheprevioustwoDirectiveshavedone,asexaminedabove,anyothercrite-
ria,suchasmeritorpurpose,todeterminetheeligibilityforprotectionandaddsthat
Member States may provide on a national level for the protection of other photo-
graphs,i.e.thenon-originalones,bygrantingotherrelatedrightswithdifferentterms
ofprotection40.TheDirectivehasstirredadebateabout itseffectiveness,withsome
cycles pointingout that insteadof enhancing legal certaintyon copyright across the
be consideredoriginal if it is theauthor's own intellectual creation reflectinghis personality, noothercriteriasuchasmeritorpurposebeingtakenintoaccount;whereastheprotectionofotherphotographsshouldbelefttonationallaw;’’
38SeeEechoud,MV2012,‘Alongtheroadtouniformity-diversereadingsofthecourtofjusticejudgments on copyright”, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-CommerceLaw,vol.3;AmsterdamLawSchoolResearchPaperno.2012-78;InstituteforInformationLawResearchPaperno.2012-47,C.13p.62.
39SeeRosati,E2013,OriginalityinEUcopyright:fullharmonizationthroughcaselaw,EdwardElgarEditions,UKadsUSA,p.68.
40SeeStamatoudi,I&Torremans,P2014,CommentaryontheEUCopyrightLaw,EdwardElgarEditions,UKandUSA,p.277.
-22-
EU,whichwasoneofitsprimarygoals(Recitals4,6,7,21,),‘itcreatesnewuncertainties
byusingvagueandinplacesalmostunintelligiblelanguage’41.
4.The“horizontal”judiciaryharmonizationoftheoriginalitystandard
Following the process of vertical harmonization of the originality standard for copy-
rightprotectionforsoftware,databasesandphotographs,aswasanalyzedabove,be-
tween2009and2012,theCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion,withaseriesofrul-
ings on specific cases, expanded the application of the originality standard to other
typesofworks,apartfromthoseincludedinthesubjectmatteroftheDirectives.With
its proactive role and its sometimes dubious interpretations, it has contributed tre-
mendouslytowardsamoresubstantialwidespreadharmonizationofEUcopyrightlaw,
with a dynamic of eliminating the quite extensive, in some cases, differences in ap-
proachofprotectionbetweencommon lawand civil lawcountries.Below, followsa
thoroughanalysisofthemostrepresentativeoftheCJEU’sdecisions,whichhavedras-
ticallyreshapedthelandscapeofEUcopyrightlaw,asfarastheoriginalitystandardis
concerned.
4.1.InfopaqInternationalA/Sv.DanskeDagbladesForening(C-5/08)
Infopaq is aDanishmediamonitoringandanalysisbusiness thatprovides customers
with 11-word, the key-word plus 5 more surrounding words, summaries of articles
foundinDanishnewspapersandjournals,onthematteruponwhichthesearchisre-
quested.First,itdigitizestheprints,conductsthecustomizedsearchesonthecollect-
eddataandthene-mailstheresultstothecustomers.Theprofessionalassociationof
Danishdailynewspapers (DanskeDagbladesForeningor shortlyDDF)pointedout to
Infopaqthatitneedstofirsthavetheauthorizationofthecopyrightownerstocontin-
ueitsbusinesswithoutinfringingcopyrightlaw.Thecompanyansweredbybringingan
41 SeeHugenholtz,B2000,“Whythecopyrightdirectiveisunimportant,andpossiblyinva-lid”,EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReview11,pp.501-502.
-23-
actionagainstDDFinfrontofthecompetentlocalcourtwhich,inturn,dismissedthe
caseandInfopaqappealedthedecisioninfrontofthehigherHøjesteret.
ThecourtsuspendedtheproceedingandreferredtotheCJEUwithapreliminaryques-
tionon themeaningofArticles2and5(1)of the InfosocDirective42,with respect to
thereproductionrightandtheexemptionforactstransientorincidentalrespectively.
In Recital 34 of the Decision, the Court ruled that the reproduction right refers to
‘works’,whichunderArticles2(5)and8oftheBerneConvention,areprotectedas‘lit-
eraryandartistic‘ifthey‘constituteintellectualcreations’.ItthencontinuedinRecital
35by saying thatunderTheSoftware,DatabaseandTermDirectives, the respective
subject-mattersareprotectedbycopyright in the sense that theyare their ‘author’s
intellectual creation’and in Recital 37 endedup by saying that copyrightwithin the
meaningoftheInfosocDirectiveistoapplyonlyinrelationtoasubject-matterwhich
is original under the originality standard set out in the three aforementionedDirec-
tives.Accordingtothisruling,thesamealsoappliesforpartsofthatwork,iftheymeet
theoriginalitystandard43.Withthisradicalinterpretation,theCJEUconcretizedashift
towardsafullyharmonizedoriginalitystandardapplicabletosubjectmatterotherthan
thatoftheDirectives,whichuptill thenhadonlypartiallyharmonizedtheoriginality
criterion.Withasingledecision,theCourttookahugeleaptowardsafullharmoniza-
tionthatpolicypapersandlegislationhadnotdoneforsomanyyears.Itunderlinedin
Recital44thatnewspaperarticlesareprotectedasliteraryworkswithinthecontextof
the InfosocDirectiveand thatoriginality corresponds to ‘…their form, themanner in
whichtheyarepresentedandtheir linguistic form’and inrecital45statesthatthese
worksconsistofwords‘…onlythroughthechoice,sequenceandcombination’ofwhich
theauthorcomestoan intellectualcreation. Ithasbeenviewedthatthiscumulative
prerequisite does not seem to stem from international law on which the decision
claimstobebasedbutmoreonGermanlaw.44Itconcludesthatthe11-wordsummar-
iesmadeby Infopaq are protectedby theprovisions of InfosocDirective if they are
42Directive2001/29/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof22May2001ontheharmonizationofcertainaspectsofcopyrightandrelatedrightsintheinformationsociety.
43CaseC-5/08InfopaqInternationalA/Sv.DanskeDagbladesForening[38].44SeeVousden,S2010,‘Infopaqandtheeuropeanisationofcopyrightlaw’,TheWIPOJournal,
vol.1,issue2,197,pp.202-203.
-24-
themselvesanexpressionoftheauthor’s intellectualcreation45, thusconfirmingthat
the originality standard ismore qualitative than quantitative and therefore national
courtsshouldnotholdthatcopyingofsmallextractsandpassagesisdeminimisandso
notinfringingcopyright46.
4.2. Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v. Ministerstvo
kultury(C-393/09)
In2001,Bezpečnostnísoftwarováasociace(BSA),asecuritysoftwareassociation,ap-
pliedtotheCzechMinistryofCulture(Ministerstvokultury–MK)foranauthorization
to collect copyright in computer programs and in particular graphic user interfaces
(GUI). TheMK denied such an authorization and after years of proceedings before
courtandtheMK,thelatterrejectedtheapplicationofBSA.Afterafirstfailedappeal,
theBSAappealedagainbeforetheSupremeAdministrativeCourtoftheCzechRepub-
lic,theNejvyššísprávnísoud,whichdeemedapreliminaryrulingasnecessaryandre-
ferredtwoquestionstotheCJEU.
Thequestionof interest to thisessaywaswhetherGUIs fallwithin the scopeof the
phrase‘theexpressioninanyformofacomputerprogram’ inArticle1(2)ofDirective
91/250(the“SoftwareDirective”).TheCourtruledthatthesourcecodeandtheobject
code,asformsofexpressionofthecomputerprogramareentitledtobeprotectedby
copyrightasacomputerprogrambythisDirectiveandthisbecause,assuchformsof
expression, they permit the reproduction in different computer languages47. It then
continuedbysayingthat‘“…the[GUI]doesnotenablethereproductionofthecomput-
er program itself, butmerely constitutes one element of that program bymeans of
whichusersmakeuseofthefeaturesofthatprogram”andthus, isnotprotectedby
copyrightbyvirtueoftheprovisionsoftheSoftwareDirective48.ButtheCourtdidnot
45CaseC-5/08InfopaqInternationalA/Sv.DanskeDagbladesForening[47].46SeeGriffiths,J2011,“Infopaq,BSAandthe“Europeanisation”ofUnitedKingdomcopyright
law’,Media&ArtsLawReview,vol.16,p.3.47CaseC-393/09Bezpečnostnísoftwarováasociace–Svazsoftwarovéochranyv.Ministerstvo
kultury[34],[35].48Ibid.[41],[42].
-25-
stopthereandastonishinglycontinuedandsaidthatagraphicuserinterfacecan,asa
work,beprotectedbycopyrightifitisitsauthor’sintellectualcreation,underDirective
2001/29(InfosocDirective)49.Italsobroachedthecriteriaapplicablefortheconsidera-
tionoftheeligibilityoftheGUIasoriginal50.Moreover,itgoesastepfurtherdownthe
roadthanwhereitwaswithInfopaq.IfthephrasingofRecital4651isreadinaspecific
way,then, itseemsthattheCourtrecognizesthe‘author’sownintellectualcreation’
astheoneandonlyindicatorandprerequisite,inorderforaspecificsubject-matterto
beattributedwiththecharacterofcopyrightwork52.Ifitiscreative,itiscopyrightma-
terial.Ifthisisthecase,thentheCourthasleftnodoubtsabouttheharmonizationof
theoriginalitystandard,alreadystartedbyInfopaq.
4.3.FootballAssociationPremierLeagueLtdv.QCLeisureandKarenMurphyv.Me-
diaProtectionServicesLtd(C-403/08&C-429/08)
TheFootballAssociationPremierLeague(FAPL),asthemajorfootballleaguecompeti-
tioninEngland,hasobtainedbroadcastingrightsofthematchesandhasgrantedex-
clusivelicensestovariousbroadcasterswhowereobligedtobroadcastonlyonaterri-
torial,i.e.nationalbasisanduseencryptiononthelivetransmissionstopreventthird,
unauthorized parties, out of the licensed territorial basis, from receiving the live
broadcastofthefootballmatches,availableonlytothosesubscriberswhohadthere-
quireddecodingapparatus.Inthejoinedcasesunderexamination,theFAPLandoth-
ers commencedproceedingsagainst suppliersofdecodingequipmentwho sold it to
ownersofpubs (KarenMurphy)andotherpublichouseswhoused foreigndecoding
devicestoscreenlivefootballmatcheswhichwerereceivedbyforeignbroadcasters.In
particular,Murphyafter losingher first appealbefore the competent court,brought
thecasebeforetheHighCourtofJusticeofEnglandandWales,whichreferredques-
tionstotheCJEU.ItdidthesamewithsimilarquestionsincaseC-429/08.
49Ibid.[46],[51].50Ibid.[48],[49],[50].51Ibid.[46].Recital46statesthat:‘’Consequently,thegraphicuserinterfacecan,asawork,be
protectedbycopyrightifitisitsauthor’sownintellectualcreation’’.52See Griffiths,J2011,“Infopaq,BSAandthe“Europeanisation”ofUnitedKingdomcopyright
law’,Media&ArtsLawReview,vol.16,p.8.
-26-
Underourworkperspective,itisofimportancethattheCourt,fordeterminingifthe
nationallegislationatissuejustifiablyprovidedFAPLtherightforterritorialexclusivity
inbroadcastingand if this is tantamount toa restriction toprovideservices, firstas-
sessediffootballmatchesthemselvescanbeprotectedbycopyright.Itsaidthatfoot-
ballmatchescannotbeclassifiedas ‘works’,addedthat tobeclassifiedassuch, ‘the
subject-matterwouldhavetobeoriginalinthesensethatitistheauthor’sownintel-
lectualcreation’andconcludedthatsportingeventscannotberegardedasintellectual
creationsclassifiableasworkswithinthemeaningoftheCopyrightDirective’,thisap-
plicabletofootballmatcheswhich‘…aresubjecttorulesofthegame,leavingnoroom
forcreativefreedomforthepurposesofcopyright’.53Ifourinterpretationisright,the
Court, as inBSA, surpasses the lineswhichalreadydrew in Infopaqandequates the
terms‘work’and‘original’,inthesensethatasubject-matterisacopyrightworkwhen
andifitisoriginal,creative.Thisviewseemstodifferentiatefromthedefinitionspro-
videdbyArticles2(1)and(2)oftheBerneConvention,bywhichitisreasonedthatan
intellectualcreationconstitutesaworkforcopyrightlawifitis‘aproductioninthelit-
erary,scientificandartisticdomain’andbelongstooneofthecategoriesofworks,de-
scribedintheTreaty,thus,itsoriginalityisdeterminedatasecondstage54.Lastly,the
phrase ‘creativefreedom’usedbytheCJEU,seemstoassociateoriginalitywithade-
gree of perceptiveness and is similar to phrases in European case law, such as the
French‘refletdelapersonnalitédel'auteur’or‘empreintepersonelle’55.
4.4.Eva-MariaPainerv.StandardVerlagsGmbH(C-145/10)
Inthecaseathand,Painer,anAustrianfreelancephotographerhadtakenmanypor-
traitphotographsofNataschaKampusch,whenthe latterwasstillatnurseryschool.
Yearslaterthegirlwasabductedandpoliceauthoritiesusedthosesamephotographs
in their searches.Many newspapers andmagazines also published the photographs
53See JoinedCasesC-403/08andC-429/08FootballAssociationPremierLeagueLtd,NetMedHellasSA,MultichoiceHellasSAvQCLeisure,DavidRichardson,AVStationplc,MalcolmChamberlain,MichaelMadden,SRLeisureLtdPhilipGeorgeCharlesHoughton,DerekOwenandKarenMurphyvMe-diaProtectionServicesLtd,[96],[97],[98].
54SeeRosati,E2013,OriginalityinEUcopyrightlaw:fullharmonizationthroughcaselaw,Ed-wardElgarEditions,UKandUSA,p.138.
55Ibid.,p.139.
-27-
withoutpermissionandwithoutgivingcredittothephotographer.Someofthemhad
evenreleasedtheportraitsasPhotofits,afterprocessingthem,todepictthepossible
imagethatthegirlsupposedtohaveatthetime,asyearshadpassedsinceherdisap-
pearance.Afterthegirlwasfound,thephotographerbroughtthepublicationsbefore
the competentnational courts,whicheven though, determined that thedefendants
did not need Painer’ s consent to publish the photo-fit version of her photographs,
theystillreferredtheirquestionstotheCJEUforapreliminaryrulingonseveralmat-
ters.
Inparticular,inregardwiththelimitationsforquotationsandforuseintheinterestof
public security, provisioned in Articles 5 (3) d and (e) of the InfoSoc Directive and
whether,underthemeaningofArticles1(1)and5(5)oftheInfoSocDirectiveandarti-
cle12oftheBerneConvention,‘‘photographicworksand/orphotographs,particularly
portraitphotos,areafforded‘weaker’copyrightprotectionatalladaptationsbecause,
inviewoftheir ‘realistic’ image,thedegreeofformativefreedomistoominor’56’.On
answeringthis,theCourtreferredtoInfopaqandsaidthatprotectionunderArticle6
oftheTermDirectivereferstophotographs,onlyiftheyaretheir‘author’sownintel-
lectualcreation’andcontinuedbysayingthatthishappenswhenthey‘reflecttheau-
thor’spersonality’and‘theauthorwasabletoexpresshiscreativeabilitiesinthepro-
ductionof theworkbymaking freeandcreativechoices’57.Thesechoices,which the
Courtindicativelystatesinthedecision,permittheauthortostamphiscreationwith
his’personaltouch’58.ThisphrasingoftheCourtisclearlymoresimilartoitsinterpre-
tationoforiginalityinMurphyratherthanthatinInfopaqandBezpečnostnísoftwarová
asociaceandcanbereadasanacontrarioargument,inconnectionwithFootballAs-
sociation59.Yet,again,inthiscase,itseemsthattheEuropeanoriginalitystandardis
moreinlinewiththecontinentalsystem,whichputsemphasisontheauthor’sperson-
ality.TheEuropeanoriginalitystandardseemstobemoreofaqualitativenature,as
explainedaboveinouranalysis.TheCourtconcludesthataportraitphotographispro-
56SeeCaseC-145/10Eva-MariaPainerv.StandardVerlagsGmbH,[85],[86].57Ibid.,[87],[88,[89].58Ibid.,[91],[92].59SeeRosati,E2013,OriginalityinEUcopyrightlaw:fullharmonizationthroughcaselaw,Ed-
wardElgarEditions,UKandUSA,p.153.SeealsoIbid.56,[89].
-28-
tectabletotheextentenjoyedbyotherworksandthatsuchextentshouldnotdepend
‘…onpossibledifferencesinthedegreeofcreativefreedomintheproductionofvari-
ouscategoriesofworks’60.
4.5.FootballDatacoLtdv.Yahoo!UKLtd(C-604/10)
FootballDatacoand theother applicants create listsof all the fixtures to takeplace
withinayearintheEnglishandScottishfootballleagues.Yahoo!andtheotheroppos-
ingparties,usedthoselistsintheirrespectivefieldsofactivity,e.g.news/information,
bettingetc. TheCourt ofAppeal of EnglandandWalesheldproceedings andwith a
reference to theCJEUasked forapreliminary rulingonwhether football fixtures fall
within the scopeof protection providedunderArticle 3 of theDatabaseDirective61.
TheCourtunderlinedthattheprotectiongrantedbythisarticleregardsthe‘structure’
ofadatabaseandnotits‘contents’,asconfirmedbyRecital15inthepreambleofthe
Directive,and that underArticle 10(2) of TRIPs andArticle 5 of theWIPOCopyright
Treaty,compilationsofdataareprotectedascopyrightif‘…byreasonoftheselection
and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations’, that ‘protection
does not extend to the data and iswithout prejudice to any copyright subsisting for
thatdata’andhasnothingtodowith‘thecreationofthedatacontainedinthedata-
base’.62Itthennoticesthat,whilesettingupadatabase,originality,astheonlyappli-
cablecriterion63,existsonlywhen theauthor, in theway thatheselectsorarranges
thedata,‘’expresseshiscreativeability….bymakingfreeandcreativechoicesandthus
60Ibid.56,[94,[97],[98],[99].61SeeDirective96191EConthe legalprotectionofdatabases,Article3states that: ‘’1. Inac-
cordancewiththisDirective,databases,which,byreasonoftheselectionorarrangementoftheircon-tents,constitutetheauthor’s,ownintellectualcreationshallbeprotectedassuchbycopyright.Noothercriteriashallbeappliedtodeterminetheireligibility for thatprotection,2.ThecopyrightprotectionofdatabasesprovidedforbythisDirectiveshallnotextendtotheircontentsandshallbewithoutprejudicetoanyrightssubsistinginthosecontentsthemselves’’.
62 SeeCaseC-640/10 FootballDataco Ltd v. Yahoo!UK Ltd, [30], [31], [32]. Recital 15of theSoftwareDirectivestatesthat: ‘’Whereasthecriteriausedtodeterminewhetheradatabaseshouldbeprotectedbycopyrightshouldbedefinedtothefactthattheselectionorthearrangementofthecon-tentsofthedatabaseistheauthor'sownintellectualcreation;whereassuchprotectionshouldcoverthestructureofthedatabase’’.
63 Ibid, [37, [40].Article16oftheDatabaseDirectivestatesthat: ‘’Whereasnocriterionotherthanoriginalityinthesenseoftheauthor'sintellectualcreationshouldbeappliedtodeterminetheeligi-bilityofthedatabaseforcopyrightprotection,andinparticularnoaestheticorqualitativecriteriashouldbeapplied;’’
-29-
stampshis‘personaltouch’’’64.Thiscriterionoforiginality,though,isnotmet,ifduring
thesettingupofthedatabase,dueto ‘technicalconsiderations, rulesorconstraints’,
thereisnoroomleftforthe‘creativefreedom’oftheauthortobeexpressed65.Atthis
point, the Court made clear analogies to its definitions of originality in Infopaq,
Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, Football Association and more clearly to that of
Painer. It thenconcludedthat theskilland labourof theauthorofcreating thedata
andthesignificant labourandskill thatcame intosettingupthedatabasecan, inno
case,justifyitsprotectionbycopyrightundertheSoftwareDirective66andthatitisof
no relevancewhether the selectionor arrangementof thedata (e.g. date, timeand
identityofteamsforfootballfixtures)‘addsimportantsignificance’tothatdata67.For
example,theeconomicvalueofthedata is irrelevant indetermining infringementof
copyright68.Again,theharmonizedoriginalitystandardistheonlyapplicable.
Shortlysummarizingtherulingsexaminedabove,itcanbesaidthat‘’freeandcreative
choices’’areatthecenteroftheoriginalitystandardforallworks.The‘personaltouch’
oftheauthorderivesfromhischoicesandarrangementsandrendershisworksorigi-
nalandthus,protectablebycopyright.Theharmonizedoriginalitystandardisfarmore
subjectivethanitisobjective.
5.Selective issueson the impactof theECJ case lawonMemberState
domesticlaws
Itiseasilyconductedfromtheabovethatinrecentyears,theCJEUwithitscontrover-
sialrulingshasprovenitselfasthemajordrivingforcetowardstheestablishmentofa
trulyharmonizedoriginalitystandardinEUcopyrightlaw.This‘harmonizationbug’of
theCourt has led to a ‘harmonizationby stealth’, as it has beendescribedby some
64Ibid.,[38].65Ibid.,[39].66Ibid.,[42],[46].67Ibid.,[35],[41].68SeeDavison,MJ&Hugenholtz,PB2005,“Footballfixtures,horseracesandspin-offs:theECJ
domesticatesthedatabaseright”,EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReview,no.3,p.1.
-30-
commentators,castingdoubtsoveritscompetencetosticktothisproactivestance.69
However, it is sure that theeffectsof theCourt’s rulings in relation to the ‘author’s
ownintellectualcreation’originalitystandardonthenational levelofMemberStates
have beenmultiple and of a different severity, depending on the tradition, that of
commonor civil law, thatup tillnowwasprevalent in those jurisprudences. For the
purposesofthisdissertation,wewillfocusontheimpactoftheCJEU’scaselawinna-
tionallawsoftheUK,GermanyandGreece,asthisiscurrentlyunfolding.
ItismorethanobviousthatthetraditionalUKoriginalitystandardof‘skill,labourand
judgement’cannotbeappliedanymore.TheCJEUhasmade it clear thateven if this
labourissufficientandimportant,itisofnorelevance.Onlyfreeandcreativechoices
are required. The previous lower threshold that protected almost all works, if they
werejustnotcopiedandweretheresultofaminimumlabourisraisedandwillprotect
a lot fewerworksbycopyright fromnowon. Inpractice, though,Britishcourtshave
not fullyadoptedthenewcriterionandtheyeitherdeemitasrightorreject itor in
somecases theyhaveactuallyblendedtheoldandthenewone in theirdecisions.70
Forinstance,inthecaseofAllenvRedshaw,thecompetentcourthadcompletelyig-
norednotonlytheCJEU’sdecisionsbutalsotheEuropeancriterionontheconceptof
originalityingeneral,sinceitstatedthat:“…Thetestfororiginalityofartisticworksis
lowanditiscleartomethatMrAllencreatedoriginalworksfortheshowandallthe
associatedpostersetc...”.71Furthermore, inthecaseofNLAvMeltwater,therespec-
tivejudge72oftheHighCourtrecognizedtheEuropeanoriginalitycriterion,asshaped
69SeeDerclaye,E2014,“AssessingtheimpactofthereceptionoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEu-ropeanUnioncaselawonUKcopyrightlaw:whatdoesthefuturehold?,RevueInternationaleduDroitd’auteur,2014(240),p.2.Seealso,Griffiths,J2013,“Dematerialization,PragmatismandtheEuropeanCopyrightRevolution”,OxfordJournalofLegalStudies33(4); QueenMarySchoolofLawLegalStudiesResearchPaperNo.156/2013,C.1,p.18.
70Ibid.,p.18.71 See IanRichardAllenvRobertRedshaw [2013]EWHC1312. SeealsoPaulGregoryAllenv
BloomsburyPublishingPlcandJoanneKathleenMurray[2010]EWHC2560,whetherHarryPotterbooksinfringedthecopyrightinthebookWillytheWizard.SeealsoSuzyTaylorvAlisonMaguire[2013]EWHC3804inwhichClarkeJstatesatpar.8that:“Foranartisticworktobeoriginal itmusthavebeenpro-ducedastheresultofindependentskillandlabourbytheartist.Thegreatertheleveloforiginalityinthework thehigher theeffective levelofprotection is, because it is theoriginalitywhich is the subjectofcopyrightprotection”.However,bythisrulingbothInfopaqandPainerarebeingbreached.
72 SeeFuturePublishingvEdge InteractiveMedia [2011]EWHC1489,where the same judgedoesnotevencitetheInfopaqcase.
-31-
byInfopaqandapplieditinthecase,whereas,afteranappealonthesamecase,the
Chancellor of theHigh Court simply dismissed the criterion set by Infopaq and only
consideredthecriterionoforiginality,asformedbyBritishjurisprudencetoformulate
hisdecision73.Followingadifferentapproach,thatsomewhataltersthecriterionofthe
author’s own intellectual creation, Floyd J, in FootballDataco vBrittenPool, has re-
gardedthatadatabaseisprotectedundercopyrightlaw,asbeingtheresultofnotjust
labourbut thatof ‘’judgement, skill anddiscretion’’74. Tohim, football fixturesarea
productofskillaswell75.Lastly,somedecisionsoftheHighCourthavestatedboththe
BritishSSJLandtheEuropeanoriginalitycriterion,withoutclearlyindicatinganydiffer-
enceorspecifyingapossiblecommongroundbetweenthetwo,thus ignitingfurther
confusionforlowercourts76.Atthispoint,though,itisworthmentioningthatArnoldJ,
inhisSASdecision,seemstofullyadopttheharmonizedEuropeanoriginalitystandard,
eventhough,lateron,theCourtofAppeal,onthesamecase,didnotonceagainclarify
thedifferencebetweenthetwocriteria. It isbeyondthanclearthattheUKcase law
remainsconfusedovertheinterpretationandapplicationoftheoriginalitystandardof
theauthor’sownintellectualcreation,somethingthatcaneasilyleadtoincorrectdeci-
sionsanddisruptlegalcertaintyinthefiledofcopyright.
Thecategorizationoftheworksandtheprerequisitethatthecreationmustbeembod-
ied in aphysicalmedium, as stipulated in theCopyright,Designs andPatentsActof
1988seemtoloseonimportance,too,duetotheCJEU’scaselaw.Fromthereadings
oftheaboverulings,itisunderstoodthataworkiscopyrightmaterialifitisoriginal.It
doesnotneedtofallwithinaspecificsubjectmattercategoryoftheclosed-listsys-
tem,e.g.musical,dramaticorartistic,toberegardedasaworkandthentobedeter-
minedifitisoriginal.Britishcourtshavenotrepealedthecategorizationasofyetand
haveexpressedmainlynegativeopinionsonsuchaperspective.Furthermore,thisnew
dogmaposestherisktosomeworksdescribedassubcreative,i.e.non-original,inthe
73 See NLA vMeltwater [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch) par. 72 and 78. See also NLA vMeltwater[2011]EWCACiv890par.19and20.
74SeeFootballDatacovBrittenPools[2010]EWHC841,par.86-87,91.75Ibid.,par.41,43.76 See e.g. Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
[2011]EWHC2892 (Ch),par. 84and91, aswell as, SAS InstitutevWorldProgramming [2010]EWHC1829par.57,64,129,207,233,249,255,258-261,263,322.
-32-
UK,as there isnoother legalbasis for theirprotection,due to the lackof anunfair
competition statute in this state. On the contrary, shortworks can be protected by
copyright,iftheyfulfilltheEUoriginalityrequirement,asInfopaqclarified,something
thathasnotbeenyetcommoninUKcaselaw.
Another aspectof theUK’s copyright law thathasbeen significantly affectedby the
Court’scaselawistheinfringementtest.Infopaqassociatedoriginalitywiththetestof
infringementof copyrightunder the InfosocDirective’s ‘reproductionof theworkor
partof thework’.AccordingtotheCourt, if thatpartcopiedandreproducedfroma
work is itself the ’author’s intellectual creation’, then there is infringement. On the
contrary,UK’slawshavealwaysexaminedifthepartoftheworktakenwas‘substan-
tial’, in the sense that it included ‘sufficient skill, labour and judgement’ or if itwas
‘commerciallyrelevant’77.Britishcourtscontinuetonotfullyadoptthisnewinfringe-
menttest,byeitherstickingtotheoldruleorsporadicallyimplementingthenewone,
dependingonthespecificsofeachcase78.Takingintoaccounttherecentpoliticalde-
velopmentsof‘Brexit’andtheforthcomingwithdrawalofthecountryoutoftheEU,it
willbequiteinterestingtoseewhatthefutureholdsforcopyrightlawinthisstate79.
Incontinentalcountries,theimplicationsoftheCJEU’Scaselawhavebeenmuchless
obvious. InGermany,evenbefore thehorizontalharmonization,workswerealready
protectedundercopyrightlaw,aslongastheywere‘personalintellectualcreationsof
theauthor’,aphrasingalmostidenticaltothatusedbytheCourt.Nevertheless,Ger-
mancourtshaveexpressedmanydeviatingviewsonthenotionoforiginality,e.g.the
minimum degree of personal creativity and individuality80, and their interpretations
77SeeDerclaye,E2014,“AssessingtheimpactofthereceptionoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEu-ropeanUnioncaselawonUKcopyrightlaw:whatdoesthefuturehold?,RevueInternationaleduDroitd’auteur,2014(240),p.2.Seealso,Griffiths,J2013,“Dematerialization,PragmatismandtheEuropeanCopyrightRevolution”,OxfordJournalofLegalStudies33(4); QueenMarySchoolofLawLegalStudiesResearchPaperNo.156/2013,C.1,p.14.
78Ibid.,pp.20-21.79SeeHMGovernment,2017,EnforcementandDisputeResolution-AFuturePartnershipPa-
per,p.2,whereitisstatedthat:‘’InleavingtheEuropeanUnion,wewillbringaboutanendtothedirectjurisdictionoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU)andthat‘’theUKwantstorespecttheautonomyofEUlawandUKlegalsystemswhiletakingcontrolofourownlaws’’.
80SeeStamatoudi,I2016,‘OriginalityinEUcopyrightlaw’,Media&CommunicationsLaw,vol.49,p.63.
-33-
have been rather flexible, though, without stretching too far from the author-
centralizedstandardoftheirlegislation,whichhasbeennotedbysometobethebasis
oftheEUstandard.Despitetheabove,insomecases,Germancourtshavebendedthis
relativelyhighoriginalitystandard, followingthedoctrineof ‘smallchange’or ‘Kleine
Munze’inGermany,accordingtowhichevensomejustaverageworksoflittlecreativi-
ty,suchasmathematicaltables,recipebooksandaddressbooksarealsograntedcop-
yrightprotection81.
Finally,with regard toGreece, the concept of originality is established, as a general
prerequisite for theprotectionof thesubjectmatter, inArticle2par.1of theGreek
CopyrightLaw(N.2121/1993)underwhich:“1.Thetermworkshalldesignateanyorig-
inal intellectual literary, artistic or scientific creation,...”, while a second criterion of
originality isestablished inpar.3of thesamearticle in termsofcomputerprograms
underwhich“…Acomputerprogramshallbeprotectedifitisoriginalinthesensethat
itistheauthor’spersonalintellectualcreation”.Actually,sofar,thisremainstheonly
explicitreferenceoftheEUoriginalitystandard,asanimplementationoftheSoftware
Directive into theGreek law.Since the lawdoesnotdefine thenotionoforiginality,
theory and case law attempted to shape it by adopting the theory of ‘’statistical
uniqueness’’oftheSwissjuristKummer.Accordingtothis,aworkisoriginalonlywhen
there isahighprobability thatnootherauthor,evenunder thesamecircumstances
andwiththesamegoals,wouldbeabletocreateasimilarwork.AsGreekcourtshave
attimesruled,anoriginalworkhastopossessaminimumofa‘creativeheight’andbe
distantfromthealreadyknownorself-evident,whichsomehowisreminiscentofthe
term‘’freeandcreativechoices’’thattheCourthasusedinitsdecisions,asalreadyde-
scribedabove82. Thisapproach seems toput theweighton thecreative result itself,
thusitsetsahigherthresholdofprotectionthantheharmonizedEUoriginalitystand-
ardwhichismoreclosetothesubjectivestandardofthecontinentalciviltradition,as
81 SeeGompel, SV& Lavik, 2013, ‘Quality,merit, aesthetics and purpose: an inquiry into EUcopyrightlaw’seschewalofothercriteriathanoriginality’,RevueInternationaleduDroitd’Auteur(RI-DA);AmsterdamLawSchoolResearchPaperno.2013-51;InstituteforInformationLaw,ResearchPaperno.2013-03,p.31.
82SeeMarinos,M2004,CopyrightLaw,2ndedn,SakkoulasEditions,AthensandKomotini,p.80andSeeKotsiris,L&Stamatoudi, I2009,CommentaryontheGreekcopyrightact,SakkoulasEditions,AthensandThessaloniki,p.33.
-34-
itputsforwardthe‘personaltouch’oftheauthor.Whilst,pursuanttoCJEUcaselaw,
thecriterionofstatisticaluniquenessshouldbereplacedby theEUoriginalitystand-
ard,uptilltoday,eightyearsaftertheInfopaqdecision,Greekcourtsseemtobeeither
unaware or even confused in connection with their interpretation of the European
originality standard and its applicationon various cases. For instance, theGreek Su-
premeCourt,inordertoidentifywhetheralotterygamewasentitledtocopyrightpro-
tection,examineditsstatisticaluniqueness,disregardingthecriterionofauthor’sown
intellectualcreationandtheCJEU’Scaselawonthematter.83Quitesurprisingly,inan-
othercaseonanaudiovisualwork, theAthensMulti-memberCourtofFirst Instance
invokedtheInfopaqdecision.However,itdoesso,onlyinconnectiontotheprotection
ofsomepartsofthoseworks,whichmaybepossibletobearoriginalityontheirown.
Asfortherecognitionofthoseworksasoriginal,andthus,worthyofcopyrightprotec-
tion, itcompletely ignorestheEuropeancriterionandonceagainfullyadoptsthatof
statistical uniqueness,widely acknowledged byGreek courts.84 Lastly, the only clear
referencesoftheEuropeanoriginalitystandardinrecentGreekcase lawisrestricted
onlytothosecategoriesofworks,thattriggeredtheadoptionoftherespectiveEuro-
pean Directives. Nevertheless, the majority of these decisions are quite confusing,
since they invokeandsometimesevenapply85 thecriterionof thestatisticalunique-
nesstogetherwiththatoftheauthor’sownintellectualcreation.86
83 See SupremeCourt ofGreece,DecisionNo. 537/2010. See also SupremeCourt ofGreece,DecisionsNo.196/2010,1625/2014,1267/2015,1051/2015,509/2015,CourtofAppealofAthens,Deci-sionsNo.1036/2011,2724/2012,2969/2012and5190/2014,CourtofAppealofThessaloniki,DecisionNo.1033/2015andMulti-memberCourtofFirstInstanceofThessaloniki,DecisionNo.7241/2015.
84SeeMulti-memberCourtofFirst InstanceofAthens,DecisionNo.3562/2015,underwhichthecourtruledthattheaudiovisualworksfromtheperiodofthesocalledRegimeoftheColonels,haveallnecessaryprerequisitestobeoriginals,since“underthesamecircumstancesandwiththesameob-jectivesnootherauthorwould, intheordinarycourseofevents,createthesameaudiovisualworks…”.SeealsoMulti-memberCourtofFirstInstanceofAthens,DecisionNo.3141/2015withrespecttoworksofarchitecture.
85 See Multi-member Court of First Instance of Athens, Decision No. 5821/2010 par. 18 inwhich,eventhoughthecourtacceptedthat“…thesaidphotographsareplaintiff’sownintellectualcrea-tion,whichdonotconstitutecopiesofothersandshowsomeminimumindividuality…”, it finallycon-cluded that theworks at issueare original, since “…under the same circumstances andobjectives nootherauthorwould,underreasonableprobability,beabletocreatethesamephotographs…”.SeealsoCourtofAppealofAthens,DecisionNo.2211/2010.
86SeeSupremeCourtofGreece,DecisionNo.509/2015,wherethecourtjudgedthatthepho-tographicdepictionsat issuecontained inthewritingsandtheexplanatorytextsconstituted“…plain-tiff’spersonalintellectualcontributionwithintenseindividualpeculiarity...withtheresultthattheplain-
-35-
6.Conclusions
Evenafteralmost25yearsofbothverticalandhorizontalharmonisationoftheorigi-
nalitystandardinEUcopyrightlaw,nationalcourtsofMemberStatescontinuetoin-
terpret itsdefinitionbasedontheiruniquelegaltraditionsandoverallcultures,thus,
leadingtoafragmetationoftheΙnternalΜarketandanobstructiontothefurtherde-
velopmentandcompetitivenessoftheUnion.Inordertoavoidsuchnegativeeffects,
nationalcourtsshalltrytokeepthemselvesuptodatewithallthelatestdevelopments
inEuropeancopyrightlaw,includingCJEUcaselawandsobeabletoapplythecorrect
originalitycriterion.Additionally,theyshouldcarefullyconsiderwhichlegalprecedents
canstillapplytothecasesunderexaminationandmorewillinglyseekclarificationsby
theCJEU,wheneverthisisdeemednecessary.Inthisway,courts,byissuingclearand
unambiguousdecisions,willachieveabettersafeguardingofthelegalcertaintyinfa-
vourofahomogeneousandutmostprotectionofbothauthorsandtheirworks.
Furthermore, Copyright law has been mainly based on the shared competence
betweentheEUanditsMemberStates,inrelationtotheestablishmentandthefunc-
tioningoftheInternalMarket,byvirtueofArticles4(2)(a)and114oftheTFEU,even
thoughitcouldbearguedthatcopyrightpertainsnotonlytoareassuchastradeand
competitionbutalsoculture,thustheEUcouldinterveneincopyrightlegislationbased
on itscompretencederivedfromother legasbasesaswell87.Themainproblemwith
thecompetenceoftheEUunderArticle114oftheTFEUisthatthelatterhasnonor-
mative capacity. This means that it gives the EU a more functional competence to
tifftobetheoriginalbeneficiaryenjoyingthelegalprotectionofthemoralandpropertyrightonthem..”.SeealsoCourtofAppealofAthens,DecisionNo.2724/2012,CourtofAppealofThessaloniki,DecisionNo.1033/2015,Multi-memberCourtofFirstInstanceofAthens,DecisionNo.382/2013,aswellas,Su-premeCourtofGreece,DecisionNo.1051/2015wherethecourt ruledwithrespecttodigitalhuntingmapsthattheyconstituteplaintiff’s“ownintellectualcreation,sincetheymeettherequirementsofthegeneraltermofart.2(1)ofLaw2121/1993,thatis,theyareoriginal”.Nevertheless,thecourtcontin-uedbystatingthat“itisjudged,inotherwords,thatunderthesameconditionsandobjectives,nootherauthor,underreasonableprobability,wouldbeabletocreateasimilarwork,whichdisplaysa“creativeheight”,soastostandoutanddifferentiatefromtheotherworksofeverydaylifeorothersimilarknownworks,demonstratingatthesametimesomethingoftheuniquenessofthepersonalityoftheplaintiff,who is naturist…”. With regard to databases, see also Supreme Court of Greece, Decision No.1993/2014,aswellas,Multi-memberCourtofFirstInstanceofThessaloniki,DecisionNo.23120/2013.
87SeeRamalho,A2014,“ConceptualisingtheEuropeanUnion’scompetenceincopyright:whatcantheEUdo?”,InternationalReviewofIntellectualPropertyandCompetitionLaw2,178,p.2.
-36-
achieveitsobjectiveoftheinrelationwiththeInternalMarketbutisnotrestrictiveon
how thiswill beaccomplished.As a result, theUnionusually chooses rather flexible
legalinstuments,e.g.Directives,recommendationsornon-bindingguidelines,thatlea-
veplentyofroomtothenationallegislatortohavetheupperhandinthefinalchoice
ofthemeasuresimplementedeachtime88.
The LisbonReformTreatyof2009haspresented theperfectopportunity for theEU
copyrightfieldtoturnthepageforgoodandatlastmovetowardsaEuropeanCopy-
rightLaw,auniformRegulationoncopyright,onthebasisofArticle118oftheTFEU,
as ithasbeenproposedby theEuropeanCopyrightSociety89. For the first time, it is
explicitlyexpressedintheTreatiesthattheeuropeanauthoritiesshallactto ‘provide
uniformprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsthroughouttheUnion...’,thoughstill
inthecontextofthesharedcompetencewithaviewtothe internalmarket.90While
improvingthealreadyexistinglegalframework,throughfurtherharmonisation,bype-
rhaps amending the existing Directives, a uniform copyright Regulation, which after
theLisbonTreatyReformcouldbeadoptedbyaqualifiedmajorityandwouldnotre-
quireunanimity,asinthepast,couldpossiblyregulatesomemoreurgentmainpoints,
e.g.theoriginalitystandard, inamorehomogenousandsolidway,asitwouldbedi-
rectlyapplicablewithinnationallegislations,alwaysrespectingtheprinciplesofsubsi-
diarityandproportionality91.SuchaRegulationwouldhelptheEUachievemorelegal
certaintyforallpartiesaffectedbycopyrightlaw,whichismainlyshapedbytheCJEU
caselaw,whichhassofarbeenoccasional,bothintermsoftimeandcontent,andsi-
gnificantly variable and unpredictable. Additionally, it would reduce legal costs and
avoid time-consuming court proceedings, in connectionwith the implementation of
88Ibid.,pp.3-4.89SeeEuropeanCopyrightSociety,2014,UnificationofCopyrightLaw.90SeeTreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion,Article118statesthat:‘’Inthecontext
oftheestablishmentandfunctioningoftheinternalmarket,theEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncil,actinginaccordancewiththeordinarylegislativeprocedure,shallestablishmeasuresforthecreationofEuropean intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rightsthroughouttheUnionandforthesettingupofcentralisedUnion-wideauthorizationcoordinationandsupervisionarrangements’’.
91SeeEechoud,MV,Hugenholtz,PB,Gompel,SV,Guibault,L&Helberger,N2009,Harmonizingeuropean copyright law: the challenges of better lawmaking, vol. 19, Kluwer Law International, TheNetherlands,pp.19-26.
-37-
theEUDirectivesbyMemberStatesand increase transparency.Moreoverandmore
importantly, it would solve the problem of territoriality of copyright rightswhich in
turnentailsextratransactionandlicensingcosts,posesriskstothefreemovementof
services and undermines the dynamic of the EU to become a world pioneer and a
norm-setter inthefieldofcopyright law,withall thepositiveconsequencesthatthis
would generate for both its economy and people. The European political and legal
elitesshouldsoonagreeuponthenextstepswhichwillforgoodunifyoratleastdeep-
lyharmonizetheEUcopyrightlaw,andthus,modernizeitandkeepituptodatewith
thestandardsofthealwaysshiftingglobaldigitalandinformationeconomy.
-1-
Bibliography
AdigitalsinglemarketstrategyforEurope,COM(15)192,final
Davison,MJ&Hugenholtz,PB2005,‘Footballfixtures,horseracesandspin-offs:theECJdomesticatesthedatabaseright’,EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReview,no.3,pp. 1-12, viewed 2 January 2017,http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EIPR_2005_3_databaseright.pdf
Derclaye,E2014, ‘Assessingtheimpactandreceptionofthecourtof justiceoftheeuropeanunioncase lawonUKcopyright law:whatdoes the futurehold?’,RevueInternationale du Droit d'auteur 240, pp. 5-117, viewed 2 January 2017,http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/3613/2/RIDA_article_derclaye_April_2014_eprints.pdf
Eechoud,MV,Hugenholtz,PB,Gompel,SV,Guibault,L&Helberger,N2009,Harmo-nizingeuropeancopyright law: thechallengesofbetter lawmaking,vol.19,KluwerLawInternational,TheNetherlands.
Eechoud,MV2012,‘Alongtheroadtouniformity-diversereadingsofthecourtofjustice judgmentsoncopyright’, Journalof IntellectualProperty, InformationTech-nologyandE-CommerceLaw,vol.3,pp.60-80;AmsterdamLawSchoolResearchPa-perno.2012-78;InstituteforInformationLawResearchPaperno.2012-47,viewed2January2017,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2111980
Enforcement andDisputeResolution - A future partnership paper, 2017,HMGov-ernment, viewed 10 September 2017,https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/enforcement-and-dispute-resolution-a-future-partnership-paper
European Copyright Society, 2014,Unification of Copyright Law, viewed 2 January2017,https://nexa.polito.it/nexacenterfiles/european-copyright-society.pdf
First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, 2005,Brussels
Gompel,SV&Lavik,2013,‘Quality,merit,aestheticsandpurpose:aninquiryintoEUcopyright law’seschewalofothercriteria thanoriginality’,Revue InternationaleduDroit d’ Auteur (RIDA), pp. 100-295; Amsterdam Law School Research Paper no.2013-51;InstituteforInformationLaw,ResearchPaperno.2013-03,viewed2Janu-ary2017,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2326425
GreenPaperoncopyrightandthechallengeoftechnology:copyrightissuesrequiringimmediateaction,COM(88)172,final
Griffiths, J 2011, ‘Infopaq, BSA and the “Europeanisation” of the United Kingdomcopyrightlaw’,Media&ArtsLawReview,vol.16,pp.1-13,viewed2January2017,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1777027
-2-
Griffiths,J2013,‘Dematerialization,pragmatismandtheeuropeancopyrightrevolu-tion’,OxfordJournalofLegalStudies33(4),pp.767-790;QueenMarySchoolofLawLegal Studies Research Paper no. 156/2013, viewed 2 January 2017,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291502
Guibault,L&Wiebe,A2013,‘Safetobeopen:studyontheprotectionofresearchdata and recommendations for access and usage’, Universitatsverlag Gottingen,viewed 2 January 2017,http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/safe_to_be_open.pdf
Hugenholtz,B2000,‘Whythecopyrightdirectiveisunimportant,andpossiblyinva-lid’,EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReview11,pp.499-505.,viewed2January2017,http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/opinion-EIPR.pdf
Kotsiris,L&Stamatoudi,I2009,CommentaryontheGreekcopyrightact,SakkoulasEditions,AthensandThessaloniki.
Marinos,M2004,CopyrightLaw,2ndedn,SakkoulasEditions,AthensandKomotini.
Margoni,T2016, ‘TheharmonizationofEUcopyright law:theoriginalitystandard’,pp. 1-31, viewed 2 January 2017,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2802327
ProposalforaCouncilDirectiveharmonizingthetermofprotectionofcopyrightandcertainrelatedrights,COM(92)33,final
Ramalho,A2014, ‘Conceptualising theEuropeanUnion’scompetence incopyright:whatcantheEUdo?’,InternationalReviewofIntellectualPropertyandCompetitionLaw 2, 178, pp. 1-15, viewed 2 January 2017,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2723998
ReportontheimplementationandeffectsofDirective91/250/EEConthelegalpro-tectionofcomputerprograms,COM(00)199,final
Rosati,E2013,Originality inEUcopyright:fullharmonizationthroughcaselaw,Ed-wardElgarEditions,UKandUSA.
Stamatoudi,I&Torremans,P2014,CommentaryontheEUCopyrightLaw,EdwardElgarEditions,UKandUSA.
Stamatoudi,I2016,‘OriginalityinEUcopyrightlaw’,Media&CommunicationsLaw,vol.49,pp49-64.
Synodinou,T2004,Thelegalprotectionofdatabases,SakkoulasEditions,AthensandThessaloniki.
Torremans, P 2007, Copyright law: a handbookof contemporary research, EdwardElgarEditions,UKandUSA.
Vousden, S 2010, ‘Infopaq and the europeanisation of copyright law’, The WIPOJournal, vol. 1, issue 2, pp. 197-210, viewed 2 January 2017,
-3-
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/wipo_journal/wipo_journal_1_2.pdf