Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a...

43
Originality Under EU Copyright Law Aikaterini Pilichou SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL STUDIES A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts (MA) in Art, Law and Economy October 2017 Thessaloniki – Greece

Transcript of Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a...

Page 1: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

OriginalityUnderEUCopyrightLaw

AikateriniPilichou

SCHOOLOFECONOMICS,BUSINESSADMINISTRATIONANDLEGALSTUDIES

AthesissubmittedforthedegreeofMasterofArts(MA)inArt,LawandEconomy

October2017Thessaloniki–Greece

Page 2: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-I-

StudentName: AikateriniPilichou

SID: 2202150009Supervisor: Dr.IriniStamatoudi

IherebydeclarethattheworksubmittedismineandthatwhereIhavemadeuseofanother’swork,Ihaveattributedthesource(s)accordingtotheRegulationssetintheStudent’sHandbook.

October2017Thessaloniki-Greece

Page 3: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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

Page 4: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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

Page 5: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another
Page 6: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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

Page 7: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-4-

6.CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................35

BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................1

Page 8: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 9: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 10: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 11: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 12: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 13: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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,

Page 14: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 15: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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

Page 16: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 17: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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’’.

Page 18: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 19: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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-

Page 20: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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-

Page 21: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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’’.

Page 22: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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’’.

Page 23: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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

Page 24: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 25: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 26: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 27: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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].

Page 28: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 29: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 30: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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].

Page 31: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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;’’

Page 32: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 33: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 34: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 35: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 36: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 37: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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-

Page 38: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 39: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 40: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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.

Page 41: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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

Page 42: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-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,

Page 43: Originality under EU Copyright Law...tual creation. If, for example a painter makes a portrait of a person for the first time, then his work is both new and original. If later another

-3-

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/wipo_journal/wipo_journal_1_2.pdf