欧盟版权原创性的隐忧:是时候拆解和协调版权的本质要求了

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW
Vincenzo Iaia
{"title":"欧盟版权原创性的隐忧:是时候拆解和协调版权的本质要求了","authors":"Vincenzo Iaia","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The dividing line between the artistic and literary heritage privatized by copyright and the public domain depends on just one word which is completely alien to the traditional legal jargon: originality. As if it were not enough the essential requirement of copyright is highly polysemic, being its meaning also sensitive to the specific temporal and geographical context. For instance, the same interior design for make-up stores has been reputed original in Italy but not in France and Portugal. The European legislator has deeply regulated several aspects of copyright, but paradoxically it is laconic on the fundamental element triggering the exclusive right: a work is original if it reflects the author's own intellectual creation. Although the CJEU played a pivotal role in filling this gap through a string of decisions, national judges are still uncertain on the relevant factors for the originality assessment, as witnessed by three new references for preliminary rulings. The different approaches to the originality requirement could be problematic for the well-functioning of the artistic and cultural markets considering the potential heterogeneous legal status of the same creation, which might be under copyright protection in one Member State while in the public domain in another one. This could prejudice rights clearance processes, including the latest one regarding text and data mining for machine learning purposes advocated by a line of scholars. By elaborating on settled European and national case-law, this paper extracts some metrics for ensuring legal certainty on the interpretation of the originality requirement. These coordinates could be incorporated in a wider European intervention harmonizing copyright law, keen to the Wittem Group project. Finally, it argues that the idea of introducing copyright formalities would also ensure more legal certainty on the status of intellectual works since the computational analysis of voluntary registrations could become a useful tool for predicting the originality of future works.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"28 2","pages":"471-490"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jwip.12343","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The elephant in the room of EU copyright originality: Time to unpack and harmonize the essential requirement of copyright\",\"authors\":\"Vincenzo Iaia\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jwip.12343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The dividing line between the artistic and literary heritage privatized by copyright and the public domain depends on just one word which is completely alien to the traditional legal jargon: originality. As if it were not enough the essential requirement of copyright is highly polysemic, being its meaning also sensitive to the specific temporal and geographical context. For instance, the same interior design for make-up stores has been reputed original in Italy but not in France and Portugal. The European legislator has deeply regulated several aspects of copyright, but paradoxically it is laconic on the fundamental element triggering the exclusive right: a work is original if it reflects the author's own intellectual creation. Although the CJEU played a pivotal role in filling this gap through a string of decisions, national judges are still uncertain on the relevant factors for the originality assessment, as witnessed by three new references for preliminary rulings. The different approaches to the originality requirement could be problematic for the well-functioning of the artistic and cultural markets considering the potential heterogeneous legal status of the same creation, which might be under copyright protection in one Member State while in the public domain in another one. This could prejudice rights clearance processes, including the latest one regarding text and data mining for machine learning purposes advocated by a line of scholars. By elaborating on settled European and national case-law, this paper extracts some metrics for ensuring legal certainty on the interpretation of the originality requirement. These coordinates could be incorporated in a wider European intervention harmonizing copyright law, keen to the Wittem Group project. Finally, it argues that the idea of introducing copyright formalities would also ensure more legal certainty on the status of intellectual works since the computational analysis of voluntary registrations could become a useful tool for predicting the originality of future works.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of World Intellectual Property\",\"volume\":\"28 2\",\"pages\":\"471-490\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jwip.12343\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of World Intellectual Property\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jwip.12343\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jwip.12343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由版权私有化的艺术和文学遗产与公共领域之间的分界线仅取决于一个与传统法律术语完全陌生的词:独创性。似乎这还不够,版权的本质要求是高度多义性的,因为它的含义也对特定的时间和地理背景敏感。例如,化妆品店的室内设计在意大利被认为是原创的,但在法国和葡萄牙却不是。欧洲立法者对版权的几个方面进行了深入的监管,但矛盾的是,它对触发专有权的基本要素却很简洁:如果一件作品反映了作者自己的智力创造,那么它就是原创的。虽然欧洲法院通过一系列裁决在填补这一空白方面发挥了关键作用,但各国法官对原创性评估的有关因素仍然不确定,三个新的初步裁决参考就是明证。考虑到同一创作可能具有不同的法律地位,对原创性要求采取不同的做法可能会对艺术和文化市场的良好运作造成问题,这些创作可能在一个会员国受到版权保护,而在另一个会员国则属于公共领域。这可能会影响权利清除过程,包括最近由一系列学者倡导的关于机器学习目的的文本和数据挖掘的过程。本文通过对欧洲和各国判例法的阐述,提炼出一些确保原创性要求解释的法律确定性的指标。这些协调可以被纳入一个更广泛的欧洲干预协调版权法,热衷于Wittem集团的项目。最后,它认为,引入版权手续的想法也将确保对智力作品的地位有更多的法律确定性,因为自愿登记的计算分析可以成为预测未来作品独创性的有用工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The elephant in the room of EU copyright originality: Time to unpack and harmonize the essential requirement of copyright

The dividing line between the artistic and literary heritage privatized by copyright and the public domain depends on just one word which is completely alien to the traditional legal jargon: originality. As if it were not enough the essential requirement of copyright is highly polysemic, being its meaning also sensitive to the specific temporal and geographical context. For instance, the same interior design for make-up stores has been reputed original in Italy but not in France and Portugal. The European legislator has deeply regulated several aspects of copyright, but paradoxically it is laconic on the fundamental element triggering the exclusive right: a work is original if it reflects the author's own intellectual creation. Although the CJEU played a pivotal role in filling this gap through a string of decisions, national judges are still uncertain on the relevant factors for the originality assessment, as witnessed by three new references for preliminary rulings. The different approaches to the originality requirement could be problematic for the well-functioning of the artistic and cultural markets considering the potential heterogeneous legal status of the same creation, which might be under copyright protection in one Member State while in the public domain in another one. This could prejudice rights clearance processes, including the latest one regarding text and data mining for machine learning purposes advocated by a line of scholars. By elaborating on settled European and national case-law, this paper extracts some metrics for ensuring legal certainty on the interpretation of the originality requirement. These coordinates could be incorporated in a wider European intervention harmonizing copyright law, keen to the Wittem Group project. Finally, it argues that the idea of introducing copyright formalities would also ensure more legal certainty on the status of intellectual works since the computational analysis of voluntary registrations could become a useful tool for predicting the originality of future works.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信