Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Copyright on the Human Rights’ Trial: Redefining the Boundaries of Exclusivity Through Freedom of Expression

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

Abstract

Courts have traditionally considered copyright to be immune to any external freedom of expression review, the tension between those rights having to be resolved through internal balancing mechanisms such as the idea/expression dichotomy or limitations and exceptions to the exclusive right. Two important rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered in 2013 clearly challenge this premise. One is the judgment against France in the Ashby Donald case, the other an admissibility decision in the Swedish “Pirate Bay” application. Both rulings held that the use of a copyrighted work can be considered as an exercise of the right to freedom of expression, even if the use qualifies as an infringement and is profit-motivated. The Court, by verifying if in the given situation the interference can be justified with regard to other conflicting rights, accepts the idea that the compatibility of any copyright enforcement measure with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that no predetermined answer can be given by copyright law. Thus, it can be expected that freedom of expression might be used in the future by courts to redefine the boundaries of exclusivity. Taking this recent case law of the ECtHR as a starting point, this article examines what guidelines should be applied by the judiciary when having to solve the conflict between copyright and freedom of expression in a particular case.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Patterson (1987), at 3.

  2. See e.g. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Scoreboard Posters, Inc., 600 F.2d 1184 (5th Cir. 1979), at 1188 (“[t]he first amendment is not a license to trammel on legally recognized rights in intellectual property”); Harper & Row Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (copyright is “categorically immune” to free speech). See also Television New Zealand Ltd. v. Newsmonitor Services Ltd. [1994] 2 NZLR 91; French Supreme Court, “Tuileries”, 4 July 1995, 167 RIDA 259; German Federal Court of Justice, “CB-Infobank I”, 16 January 1997, 1997 GRUR 459; Austrian Supreme Court, “Karikaturwiedergabe”, 9 December 1997, 1998 GRUR Int. 896.

  3. See, inter alia, Paris District Court, 3rd chamber, “Utrillo”, 23 February 1999, 184 RIDA 374 (2000); Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland [1999] RPC 655 (Ch.D); SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2001); German Constitutional Court, “Germania 3”, 29 June 2000, 2001 GRUR Int. 149; Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd. [2001] EWCA Civ. 1142; Austrian Supreme Court, “Medienprofessor”, 12 June 2001, 2002 GRUR Int. 341; The Hague Court of Appeals, Church of Scientology v. XS4ALL, 4 September 2003, 6 AMI 222 (2003); Supreme Court of the canton of Zurich, 9 September 2004, 2004 Medialex 231; Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc., 406 F.Supp.2d 274 (SDNY 2005). For further overview of some of these cases, see Hugenholtz (2001); Birnhack (2004); Geiger (2006, 2004a).

  4. See e.g. Dinwoodie (2008), at 257 observing that the free speech jurisprudence “probably should not map the contours of copyright because copyright law is pursuing a number of values that include but are not limited to the effectuation of speech values”. See also Cohen Jehoram (2004), at 276 stating that copyright and freedom of expression “spare each other”; Mallet-Poujol (2002), at 2424; Edelman (2000); Lucas (2005), at 21.

  5. See e.g. Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland, Court of Appeal – Civil Division, 10 February 2000, [2000] EWCA Civ. 37; Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001); French Supreme Court, 1st Civil Chamber, “Utrillo”, 13 November 2003, 35 IIC 716 (2004); Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003); Luck’s Music Library, Inc., 321 F.Supp.2d, 118 (2004); Belgian Supreme Court, 25 September 2003, 2004 Auteurs & Média 29; Federal Court of Switzerland, 22 June 2005, sic! online (2005), 732 Medialex 153 (2005); Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc., 489 F.3d 474 (2nd Cir. 2007); Brussels District Court, Copiepresse SCRL v. Google Inc., 15 February 2007, 39(4) IIC 451 (2008); Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012).

  6. ECtHR, Ashby Donald and Others v. France, No. 36769/08, 10 January 2013, unreported, see this issue of IIC at doi:10.1007/s40319-014-0180-4; 4(1) Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 95 (2014), comment by P. Torremans. See also Voorhoof (2014).

  7. ECtHR, Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.), No. 40397/12, 19 February 2013, unreported; 44(6) IIC 724 (2013). For a comment, see Jones (2013); Voorhoof (2014).

  8. For the purposes of the current work the terms “human rights” and “fundamental rights” are used interchangeably unless the context implies otherwise.

  9. Geiger (2004b), at 272 stating that “intellectual property rights constitute islands of exclusivity in an ocean of liberty”.

  10. See e.g. Helfer (1993); Sundberg (1987).

  11. Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5.

  12. However, note that this type of conflict had been considered previously by the former Commission in the case of Société Nationale De Programmes FRANCE 2 v. France (dec.) (ECommHR, No. 30262/96, 15 January 1997, unreported) and in N.V. Televizier v. The Netherlands (report) (ECommHR, No. 2690/65, 3 October 1968, unreported).

  13. According to the applicants, Art. L. 122-5 9° should have been also applied to the creations of designers and fashion houses, as long as such creations were also protected under the French copyright law.

  14. Paris Court of Appeal, 13th Chamber, Section A, Roberts A. D. et autres contre Sociétés Chanel et autres, 17 January 2007; (24) RLDI 18 (2007), comment by J.-B. Auroux; (23) Propr. intell. 216 (2007), comment by A. Lucas.

  15. French Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, Roberts A. D. et autres contre Chanel et autres, 5 February 2008, No. 07-81.387, Bull. crim. No. 28. For a comment, see Aittouares (2008); Derclaye (2008).

  16. Upphovsrättslagen, 1960:729.

  17. Stockholm District Court, 17 April 2009, case No. B 13301-06. For a comment, see Edström and Nillson (2009); Yan (2012); Plogell and Ullberg (2009).

  18. Swedish Court of Appeal, 26 November 2010, case No. B 4041-09. For a comment, see Plogell and Ullberg (2011).

  19. Notably, the Court of Appeal pointed that TPB had created the possibility to upload and store torrent files, a database and a tracker-function, and thus had not merely offered transfer of data or caching. The Court of Appeal also noted that the defendants had committed offences intentionally and had not taken any precautionary measures, while the torrent files, which referred to copyright-protected material, had not been removed despite warnings and requests that they do so.

  20. For further discussion of the “three-part test” as a tool for assessing restrictions on freedom of expression, see, among others, Mendel (2011, 2008); Macovei (2001), at 37.

  21. See, inter alia, Arts. 8–11 and Art. 2 of the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR.

  22. Meeting no difficulty in finding respectively that an interference by the national authorities was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of rights of others (that is of the exclusive right holders).

  23. The test of “necess[ity] in a democratic society” requires the Court to determine whether the “interference” complained of corresponded to a “pressing social need”, whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (“proportionality test”) and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see ECtHR, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1), No. 6538/74, 26 April 1979, para. 62, Series A No. 30). For further discussion of the “democratic necessity test”, see Greer (1997), at 14 et seq.

  24. ECtHR, Ashby Donald and Others v. France, supra note 6, para. 39.

  25. ECtHR, Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.), supra note 7, p. 11.

  26. Id., p. 10. See also ECtHR, Ashby Donald and Others v. France, supra note 6, para. 40.

  27. Id. For the previous examples of similar pronouncements in the Court’s case law on the coverage of IP by the Convention-granted right to property, see e.g., in the field of copyright: ECtHR, Balan v. Moldova, No. 19247/03, 29 January 2008, para. 34, unreported; ECtHR, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), No. 28743/03, 5 July 2005, p. 7, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2005-IX; ECtHR, Dima v. Romania (dec.), No. 58472/00, 26 May 2005, p. 20, unreported; ECommHR, Aral, Tekin and Aral v. Turkey (dec.), No. 24563/94, 14 January 1998, p. 4, unreported; ECommHR, A.D. v. the Netherlands (dec.), No. 21962/93, 11 January 1994, p. 6, unreported. In the field of trademarks: ECtHR, Paeffgen Gmbh v. Germany (dec.), Nos. 25379/04, 21688/05, 21722/05 and 21770/05, 18 September 2007, p. 8, unreported; ECtHR, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], No. 73049/01, 11 January 2007, para. 72, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2007-I. In the field of patent law: ECommHR, Lenzing AG v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 38817/97, 9 September 1998, p. 10, unreported; ECommHR, Smith Kline & French Lab. Ltd. v. the Netherlands (dec.), No. 12633/87, 4 October 1990, p. 79, Decisions and Reports 66, p. 70.

  28. On previous cases in which copyright had been in a similar way considered to constitute an interference with the applicants’ rights under the Convention, see e.g. ECommHR, Société Nationale De Programmes FRANCE 2 v. France (dec.), supra note 12; ECtHR, Chappell v. the United Kingdom, No. 10461/83, 30 March 1989, Series A No. 152-A.

  29. Suthersanen (2008), at 184. More generally on the relationship between copyright and freedom of expression in Europe, see Hugenholtz (2001); Griffiths and Suthersanen (2005); Voorhoof (2002); Akester (2006); Griffiths (2002a); Strowel and Tulkens (2006); MacMillan Patfield (1996); Cohen Jehoram (2004); Rosen (2008); Geiger (2004c, 2007a).

  30. See Geiger (2013a).

  31. CJEU, Case C-283/11, Sky Österreich [2013], Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2013, not yet published.

  32. CJEU, Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended [2011], Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011, ECR I-11959.

  33. CJEU, Case C-360/10, SABAM v. Netlog [2012], Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012, not yet published; 2 CMLR 18.

  34. On these cases, see Geiger and Schönherr (2012); Kulk (2012).

  35. On this tendency, see Geiger (2009a, 2012a). See further, most recently, CJEU, Case C-314/12, Telekabel [2014], Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2014, not yet published, explicitly recognizing the conflict of copyright with freedom of expression and freedom to conduct a business. In fact, according to the Court, an injunction ordering the ISP to block its customers’ access to a copyright-infringing website “results primarily in a conflict between copyrights and related rights […] and the freedom of information of internet users” (para. 47, emphasis added).

  36. Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd. [2001], supra note 3.

  37. Austrian Supreme Court, “Medienprofessor”, supra note 3.

  38. The Hague Court of Appeals, Church of Scientology v. XS4ALL, supra note 3. Note that on 16 December 2005 the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed Scientology’s appeal and made the previous ruling final, but without deciding on the merits of the case (see the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 16 December 2005, 1st Chamber, No. C04/020/HR (LJN AT2056)).

  39. German Constitutional Court, “Germania 3”, supra note 3. For a comment, see Hugenholtz and Senftleben (2011); Senftleben (2004), at 29; Antons and Adeney (2013). See also Geiger (2007b).

  40. See Suthersanen (2008), at 184.

  41. See supra notes 2 and 5.

  42. Applying the terminology of C.R. Munro as advanced in his very interesting article, “The value of commercial speech”, Munro (2003), at 149–150.

  43. ECtHR, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], No. 39954/08, 7 February 2012, para. 90, unreported.

  44. ECtHR, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], No. 23556/94, 8 July 1999, para. 34, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-IV; ECtHR, Concurring opinion of judge Pinto de Albuquerque in the case of Fáber v. Hungary, No. 40721/08, 24 July 2012, unreported: “objectively and subjectively political nature of the expression is irrefutable, which significantly narrows the margin of appreciation of the respondent State”.

  45. See ECtHR, Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2) [GC], Nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, 7 February 2012, para. 109, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2012; and ECtHR, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], supra note 43, para. 90, with further references.

  46. See ECtHR, Verlagsgruppe News GmbH and Bobi v. Austria, No. 59631/09, 4 December 2012, para. 76, unreported.

  47. ECtHR, Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2) [GC], supra note 45, para. 118 (emphasis added).

  48. Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. (2005), supra note 3.

  49. Id., at 282–283, 286 (emphasis added).

  50. The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit vacated the lower court’s order for failure to conduct the full analysis necessary to reach the conclusion that Viewfinder’s First Amendment rights would be violated. The Second Circuit noted that the First Amendment does not provide a categorical protection, and it must co-exist with intellectual property laws: “[T]he fact that an entity is a news publication engaging in speech activity does not, standing alone, relieve such entities of their obligation to obey intellectual property laws” (Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. (2007), supra note 5, at 480).

  51. Cf. Harris et al. (2009), at 458 stating that “expression that claims to be in the public interest can be aptly described as civil expression” (emphasis added).

  52. We leave aside the question on the desirability of the whole idea of judges defining the appropriate topics of public debate, since it goes well beyond the scope of this article. For further discussion of this matter, see the very interesting article by Estlund (1990), evaluating in detail (although from the perspective of the First Amendment case law) the threats that the public concern test poses for free speech.

  53. Though, as will be demonstrated further, arguably not decisive.

  54. ECtHR, Ashby Donald and Others v. France, supra note 6, para. 39.

  55. See ECtHR, Demuth v. Switzerland, No. 38743/97, 5 November 2002, para. 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2002-IX; ECtHR, Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Federal Republic of Germany, No. 10572/83, 20 November 1989, para. 33, Series A No. 165; and ECtHR, Casado Coca v. Spain, No. 15450/89, 24 February 1994, para. 50, Series A No. 285-A.

  56. Krzeminska-Vamvaka (2008).

  57. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976), at 762. See also Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993), at 767; Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), at 544; United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001), at 409.

  58. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 255 (1964), at 266.

  59. Griffiths (2002b), at 252.

  60. Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland [1999], supra note 3, at 663. See, for further discussion, Griffiths, id. (Note, however, that the Court of Appeal has ultimately quashed this decision (Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland [2000], supra note 5)). In fact, the same was the reasoning behind the Court’s ruling in the Ashby Donald’s American twin – Sarl Louis Feraud International: “Nor is the First Amendment inapplicable because Viewfinder’s publication is designed ‘to sell subscriptions to the site, photos of the designers’ collections found on the site, and other items advertised on the site’. […] Much the same could be said of most magazines and newspapers, or of the work of any free-lance reporter or photographer who seeks to sell her work to such media outlets. A photograph or news item does not lose its quality as either art or as valuable information because the writer or photographer makes his living by selling it” (Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. (2005), supra note 3, at 284, emphasis added).

  61. See e.g. Constitutional Court of South Africa, Laugh It Off Promotions CC v. South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V. t/a Sabmark International, 27 May 2005, CCT 42/04, 36 IIC 868 (2005); Court of The Hague, Nadia Plesner v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, 4 May 2011, No. KG ZA 11-294.

  62. Cf. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), at 584.

  63. See, inter alia, ECtHR, Hertel v. Switzerland, No. 25181/94, 25 August 1998, para. 47, Reports 1998-VI; ECtHR, Barthold v. Germany, No. 8734/79, 25 March 1985, Series A No. 90.

  64. As in fact had been subsequently done in “TPB”.

  65. Munro (2003), at 149–150.

  66. Id., at 150.

  67. ECtHR, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, Nos. 14234/88 and 14235/88, 29 October 1992, Series A No. 246-A.

  68. Munro (2003), at 141.

  69. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, supra note 57, at 763.

  70. See e.g. ECtHR, Hertel v. Switzerland, supra note 63, para. 47.

  71. On the subject of conflicts between human rights, see Ducoulombier (2008, 2014). See also, more specifically, for an overview of the legal mechanisms the European courts use to address the relationship between IP protection and other fundamental rights, Grosse Ruse-Khan (2014).

  72. See e.g. “TPB” decision, where “the Court would stress that intellectual property benefits from the protection afforded by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention” (ECtHR, Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.), supra note 7, p. 10, emphasis added).

  73. European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 7 December 2000, Official Journal of the European Communities, 18 December 2000, OJ C 364/01. For an extensive analysis of Art. 17(2) provision, see Geiger (2009b, 2010a). See also on this issue, Griffiths and McDonagh (2013).

  74. For a critical analysis of this “maximalistic” tendency, see infra, as well as Peukert (2011); Geiger (2009b, 2010b).

  75. See, in addition to two cases to which this paper is dedicated, the cases listed in supra note 27. For a detailed analysis of intellectual property case law of the ECtHR, see Helfer (2008); Welkowitz (2013).

  76. Beiter (2008), at 717.

  77. ECtHR, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], supra note 27. For a comment, see an excellent article by Beiter, id.; see also Reiss (2011).

  78. Consider e.g. the fact that neither the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights contain any reference to protecting property, while the provision eventually adopted by Art. 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR safeguards only a much qualified right, allowing the State a wide power to interfere with it. See Harris et al. (2009), at 655. See also Council of Europe, Preparatory work on Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, CDH (76) 36, Strasbourg, 13 August 1976.

  79. Yu (2007), at 732. See also UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 17: The Right of Everyone to Benefit from the Protection of the Moral and Material Interests Resulting from any Scientific, Literary or Artistic Production of Which He or She is the Author (Art. 15, Para. 1 (c) of the Covenant), 12 January 2006, E/C.12/GC/17, para. 15.

  80. For further discussion, see Craig (2011), at 218; Carrier (2004). For a detailed analysis of how intellectual property protection is framed in other leading human rights instruments, as well as in numerous national constitutions worldwide, see Geiger (2014a).

  81. See Dietz (1995).

  82. UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 10 December 1948, 217 A (III).

  83. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3.

  84. CESCR, General Comment No. 17, supra note 79.

  85. Consider also, in this light, the cross-regional statement, “Towards a Human Rights Approach to Intellectual Property”, delivered on 14 March 2014 by Egypt, on behalf of 90 countries, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The statement notes, inter alia, “that it is important not to equate intellectual property rights with the human right recognized in Article 15, paragraph. 1(c)”. For further discussion, see Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008), at 218.

  86. See Geiger (2012a), at 227.

  87. ECommHR, Société Nationale De Programmes FRANCE 2 v. France (dec.), supra note 12.

  88. Such legitimate limitation being the protection of the rights of others.

  89. See ECommHR, Smith Kline & French Lab. Ltd. v. the Netherlands, supra note 27, p. 79. In this case the Commission stated that patents were personal property under the Dutch law, being transferable and assignable, and on these grounds found that they were protected by Art. 1 of the First Protocol.

  90. As has been aptly putted by T. Mylly, “the protection of property ownership [within the last years] has assumed functions on top of being a super right of the previous era rescuing secondary IP norms from any challenge based on other fundamental rights” (Mylly (2014), emphasis added). It has also been observed that “the continuing [European] trend towards ever stronger” IP protection was partly “supported by the fact that some Member States referred to the legal protection of copyright as ‘property’ under their national Constitutions” (Kur and Dreier (2013), at 248).

  91. For further critique of the approach towards treating the right to intellectual property and other fundamental rights “as if they were of equal rank”, see Peukert (2014). See also Burrell and Gangjee (2010); Angelopoulos (2008).

  92. See, for details on this issue, Geiger (2014b).

  93. Emphasis added.

  94. Emphasis added.

  95. Council of Europe, Preparatory work on Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 78 (see e.g. presentation of Mr. de la Vallée-Poussin (Belgium), p. 12; consider also the statement made by Mr. Nally (United Kingdom) at p. 16 that the “basis of Europe’s fight for survival is a struggle for the subordination of private property to the needs of the community”).

  96. Note from the Praesidium, Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Text of the Explanations Relating to the Complete Text of the Charter as set out in CHARTE 4487/00 CONVENT 50 (Brussels, 2000), at 19–20.

  97. CJEU, Case C-360/10, SABAM v. Netlog [2012], supra note 33, para. 41; CJEU, Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended [2011], supra note 32, para. 43 (emphasis added); CJEU, Case C-314/12, Telekabel [2014], supra note 35, para. 61.

  98. CJEU, Case C-277/10, Martin Luksan v. Petrus van der Let [2012], Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2012, para. 68, not yet published.

  99. See, in this sense, Calliess (2007), at 456 stating that the social function “serves as a justification for and limitation of the restrictions imposed on property utilisation”.

  100. Voorhoof (1995).

  101. A particular importance of freedom of expression is elaborated in a substantial body of the Strasbourg Court’s case law. For example, in its landmark Handyside judgment the ECtHR has described freedom of expression as “one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man” (ECtHR, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, No. 5493/72, 7 December 1976, para. 49, Series A No. 24). For further analysis, see Oetheimer (2007).

  102. See supra notes 31–33. See also CJEU, Case C-145/10, Painer [2011], Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2011, not yet published; (78) RLDI 14 (2012).

  103. ECtHR, Ashby Donald and Others v. France, supra note 6, para. 42.

  104. Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. (2007), supra note 5, at 476 (emphasis added).

  105. Macovei (2001), at 11.

  106. ECtHR, Lingens v. Austria, No. 9815/82, 8 July 1986, para. 42, Series A No. 103. For further discussion, see Harris et al. (2009), at 351.

  107. See ECtHR, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], No. 21980/93, 20 May 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III; ECtHR, Jersild v. Denmark [GC], No. 15890/89, 23 September 1994, para. 35, Series A No. 298.

  108. Citing Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. (2005), supra note 3, at 284, alluding to R. Magritte’s iconic “La Trahison des images (Ceci n’est pas une pipe)” [The Treachery of images (This is not a pipe)] which points out in a somehow paradoxical manner that a painting of a pipe is by far not the pipe itself.

  109. ECtHR, Autronic AG v. Switzerland, No. 12726/87, 22 May 1990, para. 47, Series A No. 178.

  110. See ECtHR, Joint dissenting opinion of judges Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska and Vučinić in the case of Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], No. 16354/06, 13 July 2012, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2012.

  111. Paris District Court, “Utrillo” (1999), supra note 3.

  112. The court of appeal has reversed the decision of the district court (Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber A, “Utrillo”, 30 May 2001, 2002 GRUR Int. 329), the reversal confirmed by the French Supreme Court (1st Civil Chamber, “Utrillo” (2003), supra note 5); for a comment on this case, see Geiger (2004d).

  113. Geiger (2007a), at 38.

  114. Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland [1999], supra note 3.

  115. Id.

  116. Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland [2000], supra note 5.

  117. Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008), at 227.

  118. Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. (2005), supra note 3, at 283. Consider also the Court’s observation on this point that the fact “[t]hat Viewfinder does not editorialize about plaintiffs’ work, but confines itself to providing basic information about it, is not germane. A news medium is not required, in order to secure First Amendment protection, to provide ‘editorial content discussing any collection, its merits or lack thereof’, or to provide ‘articles about fashion, trends in fashion, or the like’. […] It is not up to plaintiffs, or to this Court, to decide what ‘editorial content’ we would like to see on a fashion website” (Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. (2005), id., at 284).

  119. Geiger (2007a), at 40.

  120. Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. (2005), supra note 3, at 284.

  121. Id.

  122. Id., at 284–285.

  123. Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd [2001], supra note 3.

  124. ECtHR, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], No. 29183/95, 21 January 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I.

  125. Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd [2001], supra note 3, para. 43 (emphasis added).

  126. See ECtHR, Thoma v. Luxembourg, No. 38432/97, 29 March 2001, para. 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-III; ECtHR, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway, supra note 107.

  127. ECtHR, Jersild v. Denmark, supra note 107.

  128. Which warned that if duties and responsibilities were applied too extensively, there was a risk of undermining the protection of freedom of expression.

  129. Consider in this light an observation made by P. Goldstein as late as in 1970: “Satisfaction of the public interest in access requires adherence to what might appear to be a drastic perspective: that copyright infringement serves a healthy function and deserves to be encouraged. The infringer is, in any case, the sole proponent of the generalized interest in access; for courts to prejudice his position with assumptions of infringement’s intrinsic badness would significantly impede vindication of the public interest” (Goldstein (1970), at 1055–1056, emphasis added).

  130. See, in this sense, Geiger (2009b, 2013b). For further analysis of the negative consequences of the “absolutist” vision of IP, see Peukert (2011).

  131. On the lack of clear criteria as a serious pitfall in application of the margin of appreciation doctrine, see e.g. Greer (2000), at 5; Brauch (2004/2005), at 121; Janis et al. (2008), at 255.

  132. For further discussion, see Geiger (2012b, 2006, 2004b, 2014b).

References

  • Aittouares J (2008) Le défilé de mode, oeuvre de l’esprit. RLDI (37):9

  • Akester P (2006) The political dimension of the digital challenge—copyright and free speech restrictions in the digital age. IPQ 1:16

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelopoulos CJ (2008) Freedom of expression and copyright: the double balancing act. IPQ 3:328

    Google Scholar 

  • Antons C, Adeney E (2013) The Germania 3 decision translated: the quotation exception before the German Constitutional Court. EIPR 35(11):646

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiter KD (2008) The right to property and the protection of interests in intellectual property—a human rights perspective on the European Court of Human Right’s decision in Anheuser-Bush Inc v Portugal. IIC 39(6):714

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnhack M (2004) Copyrighting speech: a Trans-Atlantic view. In: Torremans P (ed) Copyright and human rights: freedom of expression, intellectual property, privacy. Kluwer Law International, p 37

  • Brauch JA (2004/2005) The margin of appreciation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: threat to the rule of law. Columbia J Eur Law 11:13

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell R, Gangjee D (2010) Trade marks and freedom of expression: a call for caution. IIC 41(5):544

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess C (2007) The fundamental right to property. In: Ehlers D (ed) European fundamental rights and freedoms. De Gruyter, Berlin, p 448

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier MA (2004) Cabining intellectual property through a property paradigm. Duke Law J 54(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen Jehoram H (2004) Copyright and freedom of expression, abuse of rights and standard chicanery: American and Dutch approaches. EIPR 26(7):275

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig CJ (2011) Copyright, communication and culture: towards a relational theory of copyright law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye E (2008) French Supreme Court rules fashion shows protected by copyright—what about the UK? JIPLP 3(5):286

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz A (1995) The moral right of the author: moral rights and the civil law countries. Colum VLA J L Arts 19:199

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinwoodie GB (2008) Copyright and free expression: engine or obstacle. In: Allada (ed) Copyright and freedom of expression: proceedings of the ALAI study days, p 253

  • Ducoulombier P (2008) Conflicts between fundamental rights and the European Court of Human Rights: an overview. In: Brems E (ed) Conflicts between fundamental rights. Intersentia, Oxford, p 217

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducoulombier P (2014) Interaction between human rights: are all human rights equal? Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

  • Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2008) Global intellectual property law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman B (2000) Du mauvais usage des droits de l’homme. Recueil Dalloz (29):455

  • Edström J, Nillson H (2009) The Pirate Bay verdict—predictable, and yet… EIPR 31(9):483

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund CL (1990) Speech on matters of public concern: the perils of an emerging First Amendment category. George Washington Law Review 59:1

  • Geiger C (2004a) Pour une plus grande flexibilité dans le maniement des exceptions au droit d’auteur. Auteurs & Média (3):213

  • Geiger C (2004b) Fundamental rights, a safeguard for the coherence of intellectual property law? IIC 35(3):268

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2004c) Droit d’auteur et droit du public à l’information, approche de droit comparé. Litec, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2004d) Quotation right and fundamental rights. IIC 35:716

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2006) “Constitutionalizing” intellectual property law? The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in Europe. IIC 37(4):371

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2007a) Author’s right, copyright and the public’s right to information: a complex relationship. In: Macmillan F (ed) New directions in copyright law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 24

  • Geiger C (2007b) Copyright and the freedom to create: a fragile balance. IIC 38(6):707

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2009a) Copyright’s fundamental rights dimension at EU level. In: Derclaye E (ed) Research handbook on the future of EU copyright. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 27

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2009b) Intellectual property shall be protected!? Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: a mysterious provision with an unclear scope. EIPR 31(3):113

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2010a) Intellectual “property” after the Treaty of Lisbon, towards a different approach in the new European legal order? EIPR 32(6):255

  • Geiger C (2010b) The future of copyright in Europe: striking a fair balance between protection and access to information. IPQ 1:1

  • Geiger C (2012a) Fundamental rights as common principles of European (and International) intellectual property law. In: Ohly A (ed) Common principles of European intellectual property law. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, p 223

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2012b) “Humanising” the intellectual property system—securing a fair balance of interests through fundamental rights at European and International level. The Quarterly Review of Corporation Law and Society (Waseda University) 33:291

  • Geiger C (2013a) L’utilisation jurisprudentielle des droits fondamentaux en Europe en matière de propriété intellectuelle: Quel apport? Quelles perspectives? In: Geiger C (ed) La contribution de la jurisprudence à la construction de la propriété intellectuelle en Europe. Collection du CEIPI/Litec, Paris, p 193

  • Geiger C (2013b) Intellectual property and constitutional law in the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon: time to revise art. 17 (2). Paper presented at the 32nd Annual ATRIP Congress on the topic “Is Intellectual Property a Lex Specialis?”, University of Oxford (UK), 25 June 2013

  • Geiger C (2014a) Implementing intellectual property provisions in human rights instruments: towards a new social contract for the protection of intangibles. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

  • Geiger C (2014b) The social function of intellectual property rights, or how ethics can influence the shape and use of IP law. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 13-06. In: Dinwoodie GB (ed) Intellectual property law: methods and perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 153

  • Geiger C, Schönherr F (2012) Defining the scope of protection of copyright in the EU: the need to reconsider the acquis regarding limitations and exceptions. In: Synodinou T-E (ed) Codification of European copyright law, challenges and perspectives. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 133

  • Goldstein P (1970) Copyright and the First Amendment. Columbia Law Review 70:983

  • Greer S (1997) The exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights files, No. 15. Council of Europe Publishing

  • Greer S (2000) The margin of appreciation: interpretation and discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights files, No. 17. Council of Europe Publishing

  • Griffiths J (2002a) Copyright law and the public’s right to receive information: recent developments in an isolated community. In: Barendt E, Firth A (eds) The yearbook of copyright and media law 2001/2. OUP, Oxford, p 29

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths J (2002b) Copyright law after Ashdown: time to deal fairly with the public. IPQ 6:240

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths J, McDonagh L (2013) Fundamental rights and European intellectual property law—the case of art 17(2) of the EU Charter. In: Geiger C (ed) Constructing European intellectual property: achievements and new perspectives. EIPIN series, vol 1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 75

  • Griffiths J, Suthersanen U (eds) (2005) Copyright and free speech. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2014) Overlaps and conflict norms in human rights law: approaches of European courts to address intersections with intellectual property rights. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

  • Harris DJ, O’Boyle M, Warbrick C, Bates E (2009) Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: law of the European Convention on Human Rights. 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer LR (1993) Consensus, coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights. Cornell Int Law J 26:133

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer LR (2008) The new innovation frontier? Intellectual property and the European Court of Human Rights. Harv Int Law J 49:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholtz PB (2001) Copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. In: Dreyfuss RC et al. (eds) Expanding the boundaries of intellectual property, p 343

  • Hugenholtz PB, Senftleben M (2011) Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities. Amsterdam

  • Janis MW, Kay RS, Bradley AW (2008) European human rights law: text and materials. 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford

  • Jones J (2013) Internet pirates walk the plank with Article 10 kept at bay: Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v Sweden. EIPR 35(11):695

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzeminska-Vamvaka J (2008) Freedom of commercial speech in Europe. Hamburg: Verlag Dr Kovac, Studien zum Völker- und Europarecht 58:292

  • Kulk S (2012) Filtering for copyright enforcement in Europe after the Sabam cases. EIPR 34(11):791

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A, Dreier T (2013) European intellectual property law: text, cases and materials. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

  • Lucas A (2005) Droit d’auteur, liberté d’expression et “droit du public à l’information”. Auteurs & Média (1):13

  • MacMillan Patfield F (1996) Towards a reconciliation of free speech and copyright. In: Barendt E (ed) The yearbook of media and entertainment law 1996. OUP, Oxford, p 199

  • Macovei M (2001) Freedom of expression: a guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights handbooks, No. 2. Council of Europe Publishing

  • Mallet-Poujol N (2002) Le double langage du droit à l’information. Recueil Dalloz (31):2420

  • Mendel T (2008) Freedom of information: a comparative legal survey. UNESCO: Paris, 2nd edition

  • Mendel T (2011) Restricting freedom of expression: standards and principles. Background paper for meeting hosted by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. Centre for Law and Democracy

  • Munro CR (2003) The value of commercial speech. Cambridge Law Journal 62(1):134

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylly T (2014) The constitutionalization of the European legal order: impact of human rights on intellectual property in the EU. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

  • Oetheimer M (ed) (2007) Freedom of expression in Europe. Case-law concerning Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights files, No. 18. Council of Europe Publishing

  • Patterson LR (1987) Free speech, copyright and fair use. Vanderbilt Law Rev 40(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert A (2011) Intellectual property as an end in itself? EIPR 33(2):67

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert A (2014) The fundamental right to (intellectual) property and the discretion of the legislature. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

  • Plogell M, Ullberg E (2009) SE-Sweden: The Pirate Bay case. Legal observations of the European audiovisual observatory. IRIS 6(29):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Plogell M, Ullberg E (2011) SE-Sweden: The Pirate Bay appeal. IRIS 2(37):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss JW (2011) Commercializing human rights: trademarks in Europe after Anheuser-Busch v Portugal. J World Intellect Prop 14(2):176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen J (2008) Copyright and freedom of expression in Sweden—private law in a constitutional context. In: Torremans P (ed) Copyright law: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 355

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M (2004) Copyright, limitations and the three-step test: an analysis of the three-step test in International and EC copyright law. Kluwer Law International, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Strowel A, Tulkens F (eds) (2006) Droit d’auteur et liberté d’expression. Larcier, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundberg FGE (1987) The European experience of human rights proceedings: the precedential value of the European Court’s decisions. Akron Law Rev 20:629

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthersanen U (2008) Copyright as an engine of free speech: an English perspective. In: Copyright and freedom of expression: proceedings of the ALAI study days. Huygens Editorial, p 167

  • Voorhoof D (1995) Het Europese “First Amendment”: de vrijheid van expressie en informatie en de rechtspraak van het EHRM betreffende art. 10 EVRM (1994-1995). Mediaforum (Amsterdam) :11

  • Voorhoof D (2002) Freedom of expression, parody, copyright and trademarks. In: Ginsburg JC, Besek JM (eds) Adjuncts and alternatives to copyright. ALAI 2001/Kernochan Center for Law Media and the Arts, New York, p 636

  • Voorhoof D (2014) Freedom of expression and the right to information: implications for copyright. Forthcoming in: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

  • Welkowitz DS (2013) Pivatazing human rights? Creating intellectual property rights from human rights principles. Akron Law Rev 46:675

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan M (2012) The law surrounding the facilitation of online copyright infringement. EIPR 34(2):122

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu P (2007) Ten common questions about intellectual property and human rights. Georgia State University Law Review 23:709

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Strasbourg, France

    Christophe Geiger (Associate Professor, Director General and Director of the Research Department of the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg; Affiliated Senior Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law)

  2. Strasbourg, France

    Elena Izyumenko (PhD Candidate and Research Assistant, CEIPI, University of Strasbourg)

Authors
  1. Christophe Geiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Izyumenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christophe Geiger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Geiger, C., Izyumenko, E. Copyright on the Human Rights’ Trial: Redefining the Boundaries of Exclusivity Through Freedom of Expression. IIC 45, 316–342 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0181-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0181-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation