wipo study on limitations and exceptions of copyright and related rights in the digital environment
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
1/86
ESCCR/9/7ORIGINAL:EnglishWIPO DATE:April5,2003
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATIONGENEVA
STANDINGCOMMITTEEONCOPYRIGHTANDRELATEDRIGHTS
NinthSessionGeneva,June23to27,2003
WIPOSTUDYONLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSOFCOPYRIGHTANDRELATEDRIGHTSINTHEDIGITALENVIRONMENT
preparedbyMr.SamRicketsonProfessorofLaw,UniversityofMelbourneandBarrister,Victoria,Australia
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
2/86
SCCR/9/7pagei
TABLEOFCONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTIONSCOPEOFTHESTUDY.........................................................................2THEROLEOFLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONS............................................................3ANOTEONTREATYINTERPRETATION..........................................................................5LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEBERNECONVENTION....................10
ADOPTIONOFTHETHREE-STEPTESTASAHORIZONTALPROVISION
THESTYLEOFLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSALLOWEDBY
APPLICATIONOFTHETHREE-STEPTESTTOSPECIFICAREASOF
(a) LimitationsonProtection......................................................................................10(b) ExceptionstoProtection........................................................................................11(c) CompulsoryLicensesAllowedUndertheBerneConvention...............................28(d) ImpliedExceptionsUndertheConvention...........................................................33(e) OtherLimitationsonAuthorsRightsImposedinthePublicInterest..................40
LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEROMECONVENTION......................44(a) SpecificExceptions:Article15(1).......................................................................44(b) LimitationsContainedinDomesticLaws:Article15(2).....................................45
LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHETRIPSAGREEMENT........................46(a) TRIPSandBerneConvention...............................................................................46(b) TRIPSandtheRomeConvention..........................................................................55
LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEWCT....................................................56LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEWPPT..................................................64
APPLYINGGENERALLYTOLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONS.................................65
THETHREE-STEPTEST.......................................................................................................67(a) FairUseUnderSection107oftheUSCopyrightAct1976.................................67(b) ClosedList:Article5ofECDirective.................................................................70(c) AnotherApproachTheAustralianLegislation.....................................................73
COMPULSORYLICENSES...................................................................................................73
CONCERN...............................................................................................................................74(a) PrivateCopying.....................................................................................................74(b) PublicInterest........................................................................................................75(c) LibrariesandArchives...........................................................................................75(d) Education...............................................................................................................76
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
3/86
SCCR/9/7pageii
(e) AssistingVisuallyorHearingImpairedPeople....................................................76(f) NewsReporting.....................................................................................................77(g) CriticismandReview............................................................................................78(h) UsesintheDigitalEnvironment............................................................................78(i) TransientCopying.................................................................................................79(j)
RealTimeInternetStreaming................................................................................
80
(k) PeertoPeerSharing...............................................................................................80
TECHNOLOGICALMEASURES..........................................................................................80
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
4/86
SCCR/9/7page2
INTRODUCTIONSCOPEOFTHESTUDYThepresentStudyisintendedtooutlinethemainlimitationsandexceptionsto
copyrightandrelatedrightsprotectionthatexistunderthefollowinginternationalconventions:TheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks1886(mostrecentlyrevisedatParisin1971theParisActofBerne)
TheInternationalConventionfortheProtectionofPerformers,ProducersofPhonogramsandBroadcastingOrganizations1961(theRomeConvention)TheAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(theTRIPSAgreement)
TheWIPOCopyrightTreaty1996(theWCT) TheWIPOPerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty1996(theWPPT)Whilethestudyisconcernedprincipallywiththelimitationsandexceptionsthatthese
provisionsimposeasamatterofinternationallaw,1someattentionwillalsobepaidto
differentnationalapproachestotheirapplication,inparticularwithrespecttothedigitalenvironment.
Inthisregard,theauthorhasdrawnonhispreviouswritingsinthisarea,inparticularfrom:S.Ricketson,TheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks:1886-1986,CentreforCommercialLawStudies,QueenMaryCollege,London,1987,chapter9(RicketsonI);SRicketson,TheBoundariesofCopyright:ItsProperLimitationsandExceptionsInternationalConventionsandTreaties,IntellectualPropertyQuarterly(UK),Issue1,56-94,(1999)(RicketsonII);SRicketson,TheThree-stepTest,DeemedQuantities,librariesandClosedExceptions,AdvicepreparedfortheCentreofCopyrightStudiesLtd.,CentreforCopyrightStudies,Sydney2003(RicketsonIII).
1
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
5/86
SCCR/9/7page3
THEROLEOFLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSIthaslongbeenrecognizedthatrestrictionsorlimitationsuponauthors,andrelated
rightsmaybejustifiedinparticularcases.Thus,attheoutsetofthenegotiationsthatledtotheformationoftheBerneConventionin1884,thedistinguishedSwissdelegateNumaDrozstatedthatitshouldberememberedthatlimitstoabsoluteprotectionarerightlysetbythe
publicinterest.
2Inconsequence,fromtheoriginalBerneActof1886,
3theBerne
Conventionhascontainedprovisionsgrantinglatitudetomemberstatestolimittherightsofauthorsincertaincircumstances.Inkeepingwiththisapproach,thepresentinternationalconventionsonauthorsandrelatedrightscontainamixtureoflimitationsandexceptionsonprotectionthatmaybeadoptedundernationallaws.Thesecanbegrouped,veryroughly,underthefollowingheadings:1. Provisionsthatexclude,orallowfortheexclusionof,protectionforparticularcategoriesofworksormaterial.ThereareseveralstrikinginstancesofsuchprovisionsintheParisActofBerne:forofficialtextsofalegislative,administrativeandlegalnature(Article2(4)),newsoftheday(Article2(8)),andspeechesdeliveredinthecourseoflegalproceedings(Article2bis(1)).Forthepurposesofanalysis,thesemightbedescribedaslimitationsonprotection,inthesensethatnoprotectionisrequiredfortheparticularkindofsubject-matterinquestion.2. Provisionsthatallowforthegivingofimmunity(usuallyonapermissive,ratherthanmandatory,basis)frominfringementproceedingsforparticularkindsofuse,forexample,wherethisisforthepurposesofnewsreportingoreducation,orwhereparticularconditionsaresatisfied.Thesecanbetermedpermitteduses,orexceptionstoprotection,inthattheyallowfortheremovalofliabilitythatwouldotherwisearise.InthecaseoftheParisActofBerne,examplesaretobefoundinArticles2bis(2)(reproductionandcommunicationtothepublicofpublicaddresses,lectures,etc,bythepress),9(2)(certainexceptionstothe2
SeeActesdelaConfrenceinternationalepourlaprotectiondesdroitsdauteurrunieBernedu8au19septembre1884,pp.67(closingspeechtothe1884Conference).
3Foreaseofreference,theearlierversionsoftheBerneConventionarereferredtoasActsandarequalifiedbythenameoftheplaceatwhichtheywereadoptedbyarevisionconference.Thus:BerneAct1886theoriginaltextadoptedatBernein1886(therewereearlierdrafttextsof1884and1885respectivelythatwereproducedforthesuccessiverevisionconferencesofthoseyears.ParisAdditionalAct1896theAdditionalActoftheConventionformulatedinParis1896.BerlinAct1908revisionformulatedatBerlin1908.RomeAct1928revisionformulatedatRome1928.BrusselsAct1948revisionformulatedatBrussels1948.StockholmAct1967revisionformulatedatStockholm1967.ParisAct1971revisionformulatedatParis1971(arts1-21thesameasinStockholmAct).Foreaseofreference,thefollowingabbreviationsareusedtorefertotherecordsoftheaboveconferences:Actes1884:ActesdelaConfrenceinternationalepourlaprotectiondesdroitsdauteurrunieBernedu8au19septembre1884;Actes1885:Actesdela2meConfrenceinternationalepourlaprotectiondesuvreslittrairesetartistiquesrunieBernedu7au18septembre1885;Actes1886:Actesdela3meConfrenceinternationalepourla
protectiondesuvreslittrairesetartistiquesrunieBernedu6au9septembre1886.Actes1896:ActesdelaConfrencedeParisde1896;Actes1908:ActesdelaConfrencedeBerlin1908;Actes1928:ActesdelaConfrencerunieRomedu7maiau2juin1928:Documents1948:DocumentsdelaConfrencerunieBruxellesdu5au26juin1948.Records1967:RecordsoftheIntellectualPropertyConferenceofStockholm,June11toJuly14,1967;Records1971:RecordsoftheParisConference1971(Paris,July5to24,1971).
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
6/86
SCCR/9/7page4
reproductionright,subjecttospecificconditions),10(quotationanduseforteachingpurposes)and10bis(certainusesforreportingofnewsandthelike).Analogousexceptionsaretobefoundinart15oftheRomeConvention,whiletheTRIPSAgreement(Article13),theWCT(Article10)andtheWPPT(Article16)adoptandextendthetemplateofthethreeconditionsinArticle9(2)ofBerneasthebasisforexceptionsthataretobeappliedgenerallyunderthatagreement(thethree-steptest,ofwhichmorebelow).
3. Byprovisionsthatallowaparticularuseofcopyrightmaterial,subjecttothepaymentofcompensationtothecopyrightowner.Theseareusuallydescribedascompulsoryorobligatorylicenses,andspecificdispositionspermittingthemarefoundinArticles11bis(2)and13,andtheAppendixoftheParisActofBerne.Itisalsopossiblethatsuchlicensesmaybeallowableunderotherprovisionsofthisandtheotherconventionslistedabove,wherecertainconditionsaremet.
Thejuridicalandpolicybasisforeachkindofprovisionisdifferent.Thefirstproceedsontheassumptionthatthereareclearpublicpolicygroundsthatcopyrightprotectionshouldnotexistintheworksinquestion,forexample,becauseoftheimportanceoftheneedforreadyavailabilityofsuchworksfromthepointofviewofthegeneralpublic.Thesecondrepresentsamorelimitedconcessionthatcertainkindsofusesofworksthatareotherwiseprotectedshouldbeallowed:thereisapublicinterestpresentherethatjustifiesoverridingtheprivaterightsofauthorsintheirworksintheseparticularcircumstances.Inthethirdcategoryofcases,theauthorsrightscontinuetobeprotectedbutaresignificantlyabridged:publicintereststilljustifiesthecontinuanceoftheuse,regardlessoftheauthorsconsent,butsubjecttothepaymentofappropriateremuneration.Instancesofallthreekindsofprovisionsaretobefoundineachoftheconventionsthatarethesubjectofthepresentstudy,althoughtheyaremostdevelopedinthecaseoftheParisActofBerne.Forthemostpart,theyarenotmademandatory,butareleftasmattersforthenationallegislationofmemberstatestodetermineforthemselves,albeitusuallywithinstrictboundariesthataresetbytheprovisioninquestion.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
7/86
SCCR/9/7page5
ANOTEONTREATYINTERPRETATIONEachofthelimitationsandexceptionsthatisconsideredinthisstudyiscontainedina
multilateralinternationalagreementortreaty.Bytheirnature,treatyprovisionsareusuallyexpressedinmoregeneralandopen-ended
languagethan,say,provisionsinnationallegislation,orconditionsinacontractbetweenparties.Nonetheless,therearegenerallyacceptedrulesorcanonsoftreatyconstructionthatneedtobeapplied.ForthreeofthetreatiesdealtwithinthisStudytheBerneandRomeConvention
4andtheTRIPSAgreement,5theserulesofinterpretationaretobefoundin
customarypublicinternationallaw.ThetwolatesttreatiesaregovernedbytherulescontainedintheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,inparticularthosecontainedinArticles31and32.Forallpracticalpurposes,however,itisacceptedthatArticles31and32codifycustomarypublicinternationallawonthematterscoveredinthoseArticles.Inthetreatmentthatfollows,forthesakeofconveniencereferencewillonlybemadetoArticles31and32,eveninthecaseofthosetreaties,suchasBerne,RomeandTRIPS,towhichtheViennaConventiondoesnotstrictlyapply.
Articles31and32areworthsettingoutinfullbeforewebeginourconsiderationofparticulartreatyprovisions.
31(1) Atreatyshallbeinterpretedingoodfaithinaccordancewiththeordinarymeaningtobegiventothetermsofthetreatyintheircontextandinthelightofitsobjectandpurpose.
(2) Thecontextforthepurposeoftheinterpretationofatreatyshallcomprise,inadditiontothetext,includingitspreambleandannexes:(a)anyagreementrelatingtothetreatywhichwasmadebetweenallthepartiesinconnectionwiththeconclusionofthetreaty;(b)anyinstrumentwhichwasmadebyoneormorepartiesinconnectionwiththeconclusionofthetreatyandacceptedbytheotherpartiesasaninstrumentrelatedtothetreaty.
(3) Thereshallbetakenintoaccounttogetherwiththecontext:(a)anysubsequentagreementbetweenthepartiesregardingtheinterpretationofthetreatyortheapplicationofitsprovisions;(b)anysubsequentpracticeintheapplicationofthetreatywhichestablishestheagreementofthepartiesregardingitsinterpretation;(c)anyrelevantrulesofinternationallawapplicableintherelationsbetweentheparties.
4ThisisbecauseboththesetreatieswereformulatedbeforetheentryintoforceoftheViennaConvention.
5Althoughthisisalateragreement,thereisaprovisioninArticle3(2)oftheUnderstandingon
DisputeSettlementtowhichTRIPSissubjectthatdisputepanelsaretoconstruetheTRIPSAgreementinaccordancewiththecustomaryrulesofinterpretationofpublicinternationallaw.ItappearsthatthereasonforthisisthattheUSA,animportantmemberofTRIPS,isnotapartytotheViennaConvention.SeefurtherN.W.Netanel,TheDigitalAgendaoftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganiZation:Comment:TheNextRound:TheImpactoftheWIPOCopyrightTreatyonTRIPSDisputeSettlement(1997)37VirginiaJournalofInternational
Law441,449.Atthesametime,itappearsthattheUSAtakestheviewthattheprovisionsoftheViennaConventionreflectcustom:seefurther1Restatement(Third)oftheForeignRelationsLawoftheUnitedStates145(1986).
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
8/86
SCCR/9/7page6
(4) Aspecialmeaningshallbegiventoatermifitisestablishedthatthepartiessointended.
32 Recoursemaybehadtosupplementarymeansofinterpretation,includingthepreparatoryworkofthetreatyandthecircumstancesofitsconclusion,inordertoconfirmthemeaningresultingfromtheapplicationofArticle31,ortodeterminethe
meaningwhentheinterpretationaccordingtoArticle31: (a)leavesthemeaningambiguousorobscure;or(b)leadstoaresultwhichismanifestlyabsurdorunreasonable.Itwillbeseenthattheprimarytaskofinterpretationistoascertaintheordinary
meaningofthetermsofthetreatyintheircontextandinthelightofitsobjectandpurpose(Article31(1)).Sofarasthecontextisconcerned,thematterslistedinArticle31(2)and(3)arestrictlyobjectiveinnature:thetextitself,thepreambleandannexes,anyancillaryandsubsequentagreementsmadebytheparties,theirsubsequentpracticeinrelationtotreatyobligations,andsuchrulesofinternationallawasmaybeapplicabletotheirinterpretation.OfparticularrelevancetotheprovisionsthatwewillconsiderinthisStudyisthereferenceinArticle31(2)(a)toanyagreementrelatingtothetreatywhichwasmadebetweenallthepartiesinconnectionwiththeconclusionofthetreaty.Suchagreementswouldincludeanyagreedstatementconcerningtheinterpretationofaparticularprovisionthatwasadoptedbythepartiesatthetimeofadoptingtheformaltreatytext.Suchagreedstatementsmaybeclearlyidentifiedassuch(asinthecaseoftheWCTandWPPT,bothofwhichhaveastringofsuchstatementsattachedtothem),butcanalsobecontainedinparticularpassagesintheofficialconferencereports(ashappenedattheBrusselsandStockholmRevisionConferences).Italsoseemsthatsuchagreementsmayincludeuncontestedinterpretationsgivenatadiplomaticconference,e.g.,bythechairmanofadraftingcommitteeorplenarysession.
6Agreementsofthiskindarethereforenotsimplypart
ofthepreparatoryworkofthetreaty,whichmayonlybeusedasasupplementarymeansofinterpretationpursuanttoArticle32,butwillformpartofthecontextofthetreatyfortheprimarytaskofinterpretationunderArticle31(1).
7
Theobjectandpurposeofthetreatyarealsoimportantintheinterpretationoftreatyprovisions(seeArticle31(1)),butitseemsthatthisisasecondaryorsubsidiaryprocess.Theprimaryinquiryisfortheordinarymeaningofthetermsofthetreatyintheircontext(seethepreviousparagraph),anditisinthelightoftheobjectandpurposeofthetreatythattheinitialandpreliminaryconclusionmustbetestedandeitherconfirmedordenied.
8Themost
obviouswayofdoingthisistoexaminethetextofthetreaty,includingitspreamble:asthe6 Yasseen,LinterprtationdestraitsdaprslaConventiondeViennesurleDroitdesTraits,
151RecueildesCours(1976III),par20,pp.39andcitedwithapprovalbytheWTOPanelonUnitedStatesSection110(5)oftheUSCopyrightAct,15June2000,pp.18,note56.ButnotethatSinclair,opcit,statesthatthisisdebatableandmightbetterberegardedaspartofthetravauxprparatoiresandthereforerelevantonlyunderArticle32.
7SuchagreementshaveparticularsignificanceinthecontextofArticle9(2)ofBerne,asseveraluncontestedstatementsweremadebytheChairmanofMainCommitteeIoftheStockholmConference(thedistinguishedGermanscholar,Prof.EugenUlmer).Suchstatements,ofcourse,needtobedistinguishedfrominterpretativeorexplanatorystatementsthatareputforwardbymembersofsuchcommitteesinthecourseofdeliberations.Suchstatements,atbest,willfalltobeconsideredaspartofthepreparatoryworksofthetreatyunderArticle32.
8I.Sinclair,TheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,MellandSchillMonographsinInternationalLaw,ManchesterUniversityPress,2ndEd.1984,pp.130.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
9/86
SCCR/9/7page7
leadingBritishcommentator,Sinclairnotes,thisis,afterall,theexpressionofthepartiesintentions,anditistothatexpressionofintentthatonemustfirstlook.
9Inthecaseofthe
BerneConvention,forexample,therelevantstatementofobjectandpurposeistobefoundinthepreamblewhichstates,inthebriefestpossiblemanner,that:
ThecountriesoftheUnion,beingequallyanimatedbythedesiretoprotect,inas
effectiveanduniformamanneraspossible,therightsofauthorsintheirliteraryandartisticworksTheprotectionoftherightsofauthorsisalsoattheforefrontofArticle1whichstates:
ThecountriestowhichthisConventionappliesconstituteaUnionfortheprotectionoftherightsofauthorsintheirliteraryandartisticworks.Thisunequivocalstatementofobjectandpurposemaymakethetaskoftreaty
interpretationrelativelystraightforward.Iftheprimaryprocessofascertainingtheordinarymeaningofaparticulartreatytermleadstoaresultthatispro-author,thepreamblewillclearlyconfirmthecorrectnessofthisinterpretation.Alternatively,iftheprimaryprocessthrowsuptwopossiblemeanings,onethatfavorsauthorsandtheotherlessso,thenclearlyreferencetothepreamblewillconfirmthecorrectnessofthefirstwhiledenyingthesecond.
Thismaynotbethecasewithlatertreaties,suchasTRIPSandtheWCT,wherethepreamblescontainalistofobjectives,somecomplementaryandsomecompeting.Insuchcases,someprocessofbalancingwillberequired,andthismaymeanthatthereferencetoobjectandpurposeisamorenuancedone,thatseekstoaccommodatethesedifferingobjectives.Takingagainthecaseoftwopossibledifferentmeaningsthatarereachedintheprimarystageofinterpretation,thismaymeanthatthesecond,lesspro-author,interpretationistobepreferred,withthefirstpro-authorinterpretationbeingdenied.EveninthecaseofBerne,itispossiblethatthestraightforwardpro-authorsapproachreferredtoabovewillneedmodificationinsomerespects,whenregardishadtothetextofthattreatyasawhole.Thisisbecausethattexthasalwayscontainedprovisionsdealingwithlimitationsandexceptionsthatmakeexplicitthattherearetobesomerestrictionsonunqualifiedauthorsrightsprotection(seefurtherbelow).
Itisalsoworthsayingsomething,atthispoint,aboutArticle32whichdealswiththeuseofsupplementarymeansofinterpretation.Thiscanonlybedoneinquiterestrictedcircumstances:(a)whentheinterpretationresultingfromanapplicationofArticle31(bothprimaryandsecondarysteps)leavesthemeaningofatreatytermambiguousorobscure,or(b)whenthisleadstoaresultwhichismanifestlyabsurdorunreasonable.Thesupplementarymeansthatmaybethenemployedarenotdefinedexhaustively,buttwospecificmeansarereferredtoinArticle32:thepreparatoryworkofthetreatyandthecircumstancesofitsconclusion.NeitherofthesephrasesisdefinedintheViennaConvention,butsofaraspreparatoryworkisconcerned,thiswill:
comprisethedocumentationusuallypublishedastheActes,Documents,orRecordsofthediplomaticconferencesleadingtotheconclusionoftheConvention.Thiswouldincludetheconferenceprogramsandtheworkofanyadvisoryorexpertcommitteethatassistedinitspreparation,theproposalsandcounter-proposalsoftheSinclair,opcit,pp.131.9
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
10/86
SCCR/9/7page8
differentdelegations,theminutesofmeetings,thereportsofcommittees,andtheresolutionsorvotestaken.Furthermore,althoughthewordspreparatoryworkmight,onastrictreading,betakenasreferringonlytothepreparatoryworkcarriedoutinrelationtothelatesttextthatbindstheparties,itseemsreasonabletointerprettheminabroadsenseascomprehendingallpreparatoryworkdoneinrelationtotheConventionateachofitssuccessiveconferences.
10
Asnotedabove,itispossiblethat,insomeinstances,statementsmadeinthecourseofsuchpreparatoryworkmaybeelevatedtothestatusofmaterialthatispartofthecontextofthetreatyforthepurposesofascertainingtheordinarymeaningofthetextunderArticle31(2)(a).TheexamplegivenabovewasthatofanuncontestedstatementbyaConferencecommitteechair.
Theexpressioncircumstancesofthetreatysconclusionallowsforconsiderationofsuchmattersasthehistoricalbackgroundagainstwhichthetreatywasnegotiated,andtheindividualcharacteristicsandattitudesofthecontractingparties.
11Thesemattersmay,inany
event,beapparentfromthepreparatoryworkofthetreaty,butmayalsoemergefromaconsiderationofothersupplementarymeansthatarenotspecificallyreferredtoinArticle32.Withoutbeingexhaustive,
12suchothermeanswouldencompassthefollowing:therulingsof
anyrelevantinternationaltribunal;13
thestatementsoropinionsofanyrelevantadministrativeorgansofthetreatyinquestion,suchastheAssemblyorExecutiveCommitteeoftheBerneUnion;
14thestatementsoropinionsofanyofficialorsemi-officialgatheringoftreaty
members;theproceedingsofanyrelevantnon-governmentalinternationalorganizationorprofessionaland/oracademicbody;
15andthewritingsoflearnedcommentators.
16The
10Ricketson,pp.136.
11Sinclair,opcit,pp.141.
12 Foramoredetaileddiscussion,seeRicketson,pp.136-13713UndertheBerneConvention,Article30,thiswouldincludetheInternationalCourtofJustice;buttherealityisthatthistribunalhasneverbeenactivatedinthecontextofthatConvention,and,moreover,itsjurisdictionisthesubjectofreservationsbyalargenumberofBernemembers.
14ThisdoesnotappeartohavehappenedduringthehistoryoftheBerneUnion,butthereareprecedentsforthisinrelationtotheAssemblyoftheParisUnionfortheProtectionofIndustrialProperty.AnotherpotentialsourceofexpertopinionmightbefromtheInternationalOffice(WIPO)itself:onenotableexampleofthisoccurredaftertheaccessionoftheUSAtotheBerneConventionin1989,whenissuesaroseconcerningthecorrectapplicationoftheretrospectivityrequirementsofArticle18oftheConvention.Onseveraloccasions,WIPOprovidedopinionsastotheinterpretationandscopeoftheseprovisionsandtheseweremadepubliclyavailabletoalBernemembers.
15Inthisregard,theinternationalnon-governmentalorganizationwiththelongesthistoryinrelationtotheBerneConventionistheInternationalLiteraryandArtisticAssociation(Lassociationlittraireetartistiqueinternationale),whichalsocanfairlyclaimtobethebodywhichinitiatedthediplomaticconferencesthatledtotheadoptionoftheConventionin1886:seefurtherRicketson,chapter2.
16TherearenumerouscommentariesonallthetextsoftheBerneConventioninEnglish,French,German,SpanishandItalian,tomentiononlytheprincipallanguagesoftheConventiontodate.TheWTOandTRIPShave,inturn,beguntogeneratetheirownexpertcommentariesindifferentlanguages.ForthepurposesofthepresentStudy,particularreferenceismadetothefollowing:Desbois,H.Franon,A.andKereverA,Lesconventionsinternationalesdudroitdauteuretdesdroitsvoisins,Dalloz,Paris(1976)(Desboisetal);NordemannW.,VinckK,andHertinP.W.,InternationalesUrheberrechtundLeistungsschutzrechtderdeutschaprachigen
[Footnotecontinuedonnextpage]
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
11/86
SCCR/9/7page9
authoritytobeattachedtoeachofthesewilldiffergreatly,buteachiscapableofprovidingevidenceofthewayinwhichpartiesmayhaveapproachedtheconclusionofthetreatyinquestion.Inthepresentcontext,themostsignificantsupplementaryaidtointerpretationistobefoundintherulingsofPanelsappointedundertheWorldTradeOrganization(WTO)disputeresolutionprocedures.TheseobviouslyhavepotentiallybindingeffectwithrespecttoWTOmembersinthecontextofTRIPS,butmustalsocommandattentionwhentheyare
concernedwiththeinterpretationoftheprovisionsofintellectualpropertyconventionsthatareincorporatedintotheTRIPSAgreement,inparticulartheBerneConvention.OfmostimmediateconcernforthepresentStudyistherulingoftheWTOPanelontheUShomestyleandbusinessexemptionprovision,whichresultedfromacomplaintbytheEuropeanCommunitiesagainsttheUnitedStates.
17Inparticular,thePanelsdecisiondeals
withtheinterpretationofArticle9(2)oftheBerneConvention(thethree-steptest)whichisincorporatedintotheTRIPSAgreementbyvirtueofArticle9(1)ofthatinstrument.ItwillthereforeberelevanttomakereferencetothePanelsrulinginthepresentStudy,eventhoughthePanelsdecisionwasstrictlyconcernedonlywiththeapplicationofthethree-steptestaspartofTRIPSnotaspartofBerne.
ThereisalsoanothersenseinwhichmaterialsofthekinddescribedintheprecedingparagraphmaybeofimportanceintheprocessofinterpretationunderbothArticles31and32.InthecaseofArticle31,theymayprovideevidenceofstatepracticeinrelationtothewayinwhichparticulartermsofatreatyhavebeeninterpretedandapplied.Thus,itispossiblethattheordinarymeaningofatreatyprovisionthatwouldotherwisebearrivedatonastraightreadingofthetextcouldbemodifiedinthelightofsuchevidenceofsubsequentstatepractice.Itwouldseemthatsuchpracticewouldneedtobeunanimous,or,attheleast,unchallengedbyothermemberstates.InthecaseofArticle32,itisalsoclearthatsuchmaterialcouldperformasimilarfunctionintheprocessofestablishingwhatwerethecircumstancesoftheconclusionoftheprovisionwhichisindoubt.Anobviousinstancewherethismightoccuriswherethereisambiguity,obscurityorabsurdityintheinterpretationofaprovision,buttheproceedingsandresolutionsofrelevantnon-governmentalorganizationsmakeclearwhatwastheparticularproblemthattheprovisionwasseekingtoovercome.
[Footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage]LnderunterBercksichtigungauchderStaatenderEuropischenGemeinschaft,Kommentar,Werner,Dsseldorf(1977),alsopublishedinFrenchunderthetitleofDroitdauteurinternationaletdroitsvoisins.Commentaire(transbyJTournier),Bruylant,Brussels(1983)andinEnglishunderthetitleInternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRightsLaw,EnglishversionbyGMeyer),VCH,Weinheim,1990(Nordemannetal);MasouyC.(transW.Wallace),GuidetotheRomeConventionandtothePhonogramsConvention,WIPO,Geneva(1981)(Masouy);Ladas,SP,TheIntenationalProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticProperty(2Vol.),HarvardStudiesinInternationalLaw,Macmillan,NewYork(1938);Ficsor,TheLawofCopyrightandtheInternet,Oxford,2002(Ficsor);ReinbotheJ.,andvonLewinskiS.,TheWIPOTreaties1996,ButterworthsLexisNexis,UK,2002(ReinbotheandvonLewinski).WTOPanelonUnitedStatesSection110(5)oftheUSCopyrightAct,June15,2000.17
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
12/86
SCCR/9/7page10
LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEBERNECONVENTIONAsnotedabove,theBerneConventionhascontainedprovisionsrelatingtolimitations
andexceptionssinceitsinception.Ofthese,theonethathasnowcometoassumealifeofitsown,particularlyasthetemplateforexceptionsinlaterconventions,isthethree-steptestinArticle9(2),althoughthiswasthelasttobeinsertedintheConvention(inthe1971Paris
revision).ThefollowingaccountdiscussestheprincipalprovisionsoftheParisActofBernethatarerelevanttolimitationsandexceptions.
(a) LimitationsonProtectionOfficialTexts
ThisisprovidedforinArticle2(4)asfollows:(4)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontodeterminetheprotectiontobegrantedtoofficialtextsofalegislative,administrativeandlegal
nature,andtoofficialtranslationsofsuchtexts.1. Thisleavesittonationallegislationtodetermine(a)whethersuchtextsaretobeprotectedatall,and(b)ifso,towhatextent.Thispermitsahighdegreeofflexibility,enablingmembercountriestogiveeffecttotheirdifferingviewsofthepublicinterestatoneextreme,theyarefreetoleavesuchtextsentirelyinthepublicdomain;attheother,theymayaccordthemcompleteprotectionasliteraryorartisticworks;ortheymaygrantqualifiedprotection,subjecttogenerousrightsofuseonthepartofthepublic.Thethirdcoursemay,infact,bethemostprudent,asagovernmentmaywishtoretaincontroloverthereproductionofitsofficialtexts(soastoguaranteetheiraccuracyandauthenticity),whilesatisfyingthepublicinterestinhavingreadyandimmediateaccesstothesedocumentsbythegrantofagenerallicensetomembersofthepublictomakeprivatecopies.
NewsoftheDayandPressInformationArticle2(8)providesthat:
TheprotectionofthisConventionshallnotapplytonewsofthedayortomiscellaneousfactshavingthecharacterofmereitemsofpressinformation.ThewordingofthisArticlemakesitdifficulttodiscernitspurpose.Isitapublicpolicy
exceptiontotheConventioninthesensethatitexcludesnewsitemsandreportsgenerallyfromthescopeoftheConvention,intheinterestsoffreedomofinformation?Alternatively,doesitembodyajuridicalconceptionofthenatureofauthorsrights,whichexcludestheseitemsfromprotectiononthebasisthattheyareincapableofconstitutingliteraryorartisticworksinsofarastheyembodyfactsandinformationthatcannotbethesubjectofprotection?Ifthelatteristhecorrectview,suchanexclusionisstrictlyunnecessaryastheseitemsshouldnot,inanyevent,becoveredbytheConventionapointwhichisnowexpresslyacknowledgedinArticle2(2)oftheWCTandArticle9(2)oftheTRIPSAgreement.Theexpressionsnewsofthedayandmiscellaneousinformation...donotinthemselvesindicatewhichviewiscorrect,butitispossibletofindsupportforthesecondviewinthesuccessiverevisionconferencesthathaveconsideredthisquestion.Mostinformativehereis
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
13/86
SCCR/9/7page11
thefollowingstatementthatappearsintheReportofMainCommitteeIattheStockholmConferencein1967:
...theConventiondoesnotprotectmereitemsofinformationonnewsofthedayormiscellaneousfacts,becausesuchmaterialdoesnotpossesstheattributesneededtoconstituteawork.Thatimpliesafortiorithatnewsitemsorthefactsthemselvesarenot
protected.TheArticlesofjournalistsorotherjournalisticworksreportingnewsitemsare,ontheotherhand,protectedtotheextentthattheyareliteraryorartisticworks.ItdidnotseemessentialtoclarifythetextoftheConventiononthispoint.
18
AspartofthetravauxprparatoiresfortheStockholmConference,thisparagraphembodiesanauthenticinterpretationofArticle2(8)whichcanbefollowedinnationallegislation.
PoliticalSpeeches,andSpeechesDeliveredintheCourseofLegalProceedingsThisisprovidedforinArticle2bis(1)asfollows:
(1)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontoexclude,whollyorinpart,fromtheprotectionprovidedbytheprecedingArticlepoliticalspeechesandspeechesdeliveredinthecourseoflegalproceedings.Thepublicinterestargumentsinfavorofpermittingthepartialortotalexclusionof
protectionforsuchworkshavenotbeendisputedatanytimesincetheintroductionofthisprovisioninRomein1928,butitshouldbenotedthattheprovisionisentirelypermissiveinform.Atthesametime,itplacesnorestrictionontheextenttowhichprotectionmaybedeniedtotheseworks,asitappliespotentiallytoallpossibleformsofexploitationthatarecomprehendedwithintherightsofauthorsundertheConvention,forexample,broadcasting,publicperformanceandrecitationaswellasreproduction.Ontheotherhand,thereisatemporallimitationtoArticle2bis(1)whichindicatesthatitisconcernedprincipallywiththeimmediateorcontemporarycommunicationofthesekindsofworks.Thus,underArticle2bis(3),nationallawsmustcontinuetoallowtheauthorofsuchworkstheexclusiverightofmakingacollectionofhisworksmentionedintheprecedingparagraphs.Accordingly,authorsofpoliticalandlegalspeechesretaintherightofmakingalatercompilationoftheiroratoricalpearlsofwisdom!
(b) ExceptionstoProtectionThefollowingprovisionsarerelevanthere.
LawfulRightsofQuotationThemakingofquotationsfromworkshaslongbeenrecognizedasanexceptionunder
theBerneConvention,whereitisnowcontainedinArticle10(1)asamandatoryrequirementtowhicheachUnionmembermustgiveeffectinrelationtoworksclaimingprotectionundertheConvention.
Ibid,Vol.II,1155.18
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
14/86
SCCR/9/7page12
Itprovidesasfollows:(1)Itshallbepermissibletomakequotationsfromaworkwhichhasalready
beenlawfullymadeavailabletothepublic,providedthattheirmakingiscompatiblewithfairpractice,andtheirextentdoesnotexceedthatjustifiedbythepurpose,includingquotationsfromnewspaperArticlesandperiodicalsintheformofpress
summaries.Thefollowingcommentsmaybemadeaboutthisprovision:
1. Themeaningofquotation:AlthoughArticle10(1)doesnotdefinequotation,thisusuallymeansthetakingofsomepartofagreaterwholeagroupofwordsfromatextoraspeech,amusicalpassageorvisualimagetakenfromapieceofmusicoraworkofartwherethetakingisdonebysomeoneotherthantheoriginatorofthework.
19Thereisnothinginthe
wordingofArticle10(1)toindicatethatthisexceptionisonlyconcernedwithreproductionrights:quotationsmaybemadejustaseasilyinthecourseofalecture,performanceorbroadcast,asinamaterialformsuchasabook,Articleorvisualworkofart.2. Lengthofquotation:NolimitationisplacedontheamountthatmaybequotedunderArticle10(1),althoughassuggestedabovequotationmaysuggestthatthethingquotedisapartofagreaterwhole.Quantitativerestrictions,however,arenotoriouslydifficulttoformulateandapply,andArticle10(1)leavesthisasamattertobedeterminedineachcase,subjecttothegeneralcriteriaofpurposeandfairpractice.
20Thus,insomeinstancesitmaybe
bothconsistentwiththepurposeforwhichthequotationismadeandcompatiblewithfairpracticetomakelengthyquotationsfromawork,inordertoensurethatitispresentedcorrectly,asinthecaseofacriticalrevieworworkofscholarship.Itisalsopossibletoenvisageothercircumstanceswherequotationofthewholeofaworkmaybejustified,asintheexamplegivenbyonecommentaryofaworkonthehistoryoftwentieth-centuryartwhererepresentativepicturesofparticularschoolsofartwouldbeneededbywayofillustration.
21Anothermightbecartoonsorshortpoemswherethesearequotedaspartofawiderworkofcommentaryorreview.3. Theworkinquestionmusthavebeenlawfullymadeavailabletothepublic:ThisiswiderthantheconceptofapublishedworkunderArticle3(3)wheresuchactsasbroadcastingandpublicperformanceareexcludedfromthescopeofpublicationanditisalsorequiredthattheworkbepublishedwiththeconsentoftheauthor.TherequirementoflawfulavailabilityunderArticle10(1)issignificantlydifferentinthatitincludesthemakingavailableofworksbyanymeans,notsimplythroughthemakingavailableofcopiesofthework.Thus,ifadramaticormusicalworkisperformedinpublicorbroadcast,Article10(1)shouldpermitthemakingofquotationsfromitbyacriticorreviewerwhotakesdownpassagesverbatimforuseinhisorherreview.LawfulavailabilityunderArticle10(1)alsocoversthesituationwherethishasoccurredunderacompulsorylicense,althoughinthecaseofsoundrecordingsthecompulsorylicenseallowedforunderArticle13(1)onlycomesintooperationwhentheauthorhasfirstauthorizedtherecording,
19SeeherethefirstmeaninggiveninthedefinitionintheConciseOxfordDictionary,10
thEd.2001,pp.1176.
20Ibid,1147(Report).21 Nordemannetal,83.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
15/86
SCCR/9/7page13
andpresumablythemakingavailable,ofhisorhermusicalwork.22
Finally,itwillbeseenthatArticle10(1)containsnolimitationonthekindsofworkthatmaybequoted.4. Compatiblewithfairpractice:FairpracticeispossiblyaconceptthatismorefamiliartoAnglo-AmericanlawyersthantheircontinentalEuropeancounterparts,
23andwill
essentiallybeamatterfornationaltribunalstodetermineineachparticularinstance.
However,thecriteriareferredtoinArticle9(2)(seebelow)wouldappeartobeequallyapplicablehereindeterminingwhetheraparticularquotationisfair,namelywhetheritconflictswithanormalexploitationoftheworkandunreasonablyprejudicesthelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor.
24ThereisnomentioninArticle10(1)ofthepossibilityofusestaking
placepursuanttoacompulsorylicense,butinprinciplewhereausebywayofquotationisremuneratedanddoesnotexceedthatjustifiedbythepurpose(seebelow),thisshouldmorereadilysatisfytherequirementofcompatibilitywithfairpracticethanwouldafreeuse.5. Theextentofthequotationmustnotexceedthatjustifiedbythepurpose:InitsReporttotheStockholmConference,MainCommitteeInotedthatanylistofspecifiedpurposescouldnothopetobeexhaustive.
25
Nevertheless,itisclearfromthepreparatoryworkfortheConferenceandthediscussionsinMainCommitteeIthatquotationsforscientific,critical,informatoryoreducationalpurposeswerecertainlyseenascomingwithinthescopeofArticle10(1).
26Otherexamplesarequotationsinhistoricalandother
scholarlywritingmadebywayofillustrationorevidenceforaparticularvieworargument.Again,inthe1965CommitteeofExpertsreportfortheStockholmConferencereferencewasmadetoquotationsforjudicial,politicalandentertainmentpurposes.
27Afurtherinstancethat
wasgiveninboththeprogramme28
andthediscussionsinMainCommitteeIwasquotationforartisticeffect.
29Itispossible,therefore,thatArticle10(1)couldcovermuchofthe
groundthatiscoveredbyfairuseprovisionsinsuchnationallawsasthatoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA).
30
6. QuotationsfromnewspaperArticlesandpresssummaries:Inonerespect,however,Article10(1)referstoaspecifickindofquotation,namelyquotationsfromnewspaperArticlesandperiodicalsintheformofpresssummaries.ThispreservessomeofthewordingofArticle10(1)oftheBrusselsAct,butnotwithoutachangeinitsmeaning.Thelatterprovision,infact,referredgenerallytothemakingofshortquotations,andthenprovidedthatthisextendedtotherighttoincludesuchquotationsinpresssummaries.Thepresentwordingdoesnothavethismeaningandmakeslittlesense:whileasummaryofanewspaperorperiodicalArticlemayincludeaquotationfromthatArticle(asenvisagedbytheBrusselstext),themakingofthesummaryisnotthesamethingasthemakingofaquotation.ItisdifficultthereforetoknowwhatthepresentArticle10(1)meanswhenitreferstoaquotation22
NotethatDesboisetaltaketheviewthatasimilarlimitationappliesinrespectofcompulsorylicensesunderart13(2):Documents1948,188.Thisviewisconsideredbelowatparagraph9.45.
23Nordemann,83.
24SeealsoNordemannetal,8384.
25Records1967,860861.
26 Ibid,116117(DocS/1),860861(minutes).27
Ibid,117.28 Ibid.29
Ibid,861(commentsbySwedishdelegate,Mr.Hesser).30 USCopyrightAct1976,Section107.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
16/86
SCCR/9/7page14
intheformofasummary.Thisisacontradictioninterms,andplaysnousefulpurposeinexemplifyingtheoperationoftheprovision.
31
7. Mandatorynotpermissive:Finally,asnotedabove,thisisamandatoryexceptionthatmustbeappliedbymembercountriesintheirnationallaws.Inthisregard,itisuniqueamongBerne
limitationsandexceptions,asalltheotherscontainedintheConventionarepermissive,
inthesensethattheysetthelimitswithinwhichnationallawsmayprovideforlimitationsandexceptionstoprotection.
UtilizationforTeachingPurposesTherelevantprovisionisArticle10(2),whichprovidesasfollows:
(2)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUnion,andforspecialagreementsexistingortobeconcludedbetweenthem,topermittheutilization,totheextentjustifiedbythepurpose,ofliteraryorartisticworksbywayofillustrationinpublications,broadcastsorsoundorvisualrecordingsforteaching,providedthatsuchutilizationiscompatiblewithfairpractice.Thefollowingpointsabouttheinterpretationofthisprovisionshouldbenoted:
1. Whatistheutilization[ofworks]forteachingisamattertobedeterminedbynationallegislation,orbybilateralagreementsbetweenUnionmembers(seealsoArticle20).AllthatArticle10(2)does,therefore,istosettheouterlimitswithinwhichsuchregulationmaybecarriedout.2. UnlikeearlierversionsofthisArticle,noquantitativelimitationsarecontainedinArticle10(1),apartfromthegeneralqualificationthattheutilizationofworksshouldonlybetotheextentjustifiedbythepurpose,...bywayofillustration...forteaching,providedthatsuchutilizationiscompatiblewithfairpractice.ThesereferencestopurposeandfairpracticearesimilartothoseinArticle10(1),andmaketheprovisionmoreopen-ended,implyingnonecessaryquantitativelimitations.Thewordsbywayofillustrationimposesomelimitation,butwouldnotexcludetheuseofthewholeofaworkinappropriatecircumstances,forexample,inthecaseofanartisticworkorshortliterarywork.
32
3. Theutilizationmustbebywayofillustrationforthepurposeofteaching.ThemeaningofthelatterexpressionreceivedconsiderableattentionfromthedelegatesattheStockholmConference,andthefollowingexplanationoftheirviewswasprovidedintheCommitteesReport:31
SeeheretheexplanationintheReportofMainCommitteeI,whichhardlytakesmattersmuchfurther:Itwasalsopointedoutthatthelastphrase,referringtopresssummaries,gaverisetosomeambiguities.Itwasfelt,however,thatitwouldbedifficulttogetridofthatambiguitywhichthecourtswouldbeabletodecideupon,butthatitwasnotabsolutelyessentialtodoso.
Records1967,1147.32
NofurtherguidanceonthesemattersistobefoundintheReportofMainCommitteeI,althoughthereportsoftheCommitteesproceedingsindicatethatatleastonedelegate(thatoftheUK)explicitlystatedthatthiswordingwouldpermittheuseofthewholeofaworkandthathealsothoughtthiswastheviewofotherdelegates.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
17/86
SCCR/9/7page15
ThewishwasexpressedthatitshouldbemadeclearinthisReportthatthewordteachingwastoincludeteachingatalllevelsineducationalinstitutionsanduniversities,municipalandStateschools,andprivateschools.Educationoutsidetheseinstitutions,forinstancegeneralteachingavailabletothegeneralpublicbutnotincludedintheabovecategories,shouldbeexcluded.
33
Thisisarestrictiveinterpretation,34
asitclearlyexcludestheutilizationofworksinadulteducationcourses,and,indevelopingcountries,wouldalsoexcludeadultliteracycampaigns,althoughthelatterusemaybecoveredbytheprovisionsoftheAppendixtotheParisAct(seebelow).4. Isteachingconfinedtoactualclassroominstruction,ordoesitalsoextendtocorrespondenceoronlinecourseswherestudentsreceivenoface-to-faceinstructionfromateacher.Thelatterareofimportanceinmanycountries,anditissuggestedthatthereisnoreasontoexcludethemfromthescopeofteachingforthepurposesofArticle10(2).5. TherequirementthattheutilizationbecompatiblewithfairpracticeisthesameasforlawfulquotationsunderArticle10(1).Thisinvolvesanobjectiveappreciationofthesituation,and,assuggestedabove,thecriteriareferredtoinArticle9(2)wouldprovideausefulguide(seefurtherbelow).6. TherangeofutilizationspermittedbyArticle10(2)includesnotonlypublications(presumablythismeansreproductions),butalsobroadcastsandsoundorvisualrecordings.Inthecaseofbroadcasting,thismayallowfordisseminationtoawideraudiencethatthoseforwhomtheinstructionisintended.7. OneformofutilizationwhichisnotreferredtoinArticle10(2)isthedistributionofaworkeitheraspartofanoriginalprogrammeoraspartofabroadcastoveracablesystem.Thisisincludedinotherprovisionsdealingwithexceptionstoauthorsrights(Article10bis(1)and(2)),soitsomissionfromArticle10(2)mustberegardedasdeliberate.8. Article10(2)doesnotcontainanyrestrictiononthenumberofcopiesthatmaybemadeinthecaseofpublicationsandsoundorvisualrecordingsthataremadeforteachingpurposes.Justasnolimitationisimposedinrespectofthepublicwhichisreachedbyabroadcastintendedforteachingpurposes,sotherecanbenolimitationonthenumberofcopiesthatcanbemadeforthesamepurpose.Theonlyfurtherqualificationappliedhereisthatthemakingofmultiplecopiesmustbecompatiblewithfairpractice.Obviously,ifthiscompeteswiththeauthorsnormalexploitationofhisworkandunreasonablyprejudiceshislegitimateinterests,Article10(2)shouldnotapply.Inthisregard,theamountcopiedwillalsobeahighlyrelevantfactor,particularlywherelargenumbersofcopiesaremadeforindividualclassroomusebystudents.Remunerationforsuchusesunderacompulsorylicensemaythereforemaketheusemorecompatiblewithfairpractice.
33 Records1967,1148.34
NotethatinMainCommitteeIsomedelegatesthoughtthatthiswastoolimiting: ibid,886(Mr.Reimer,FRG).
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
18/86
SCCR/9/7page16
QuotationandTeachingUses:AttributionofSourceandAuthorshipBothArticles10(1)and(2)aresubjecttoafurtherrequirementinArticle10(3)tothe
effectthat,whereuseismadeofworksinaccordancewiththoseparagraphs,mentionshallbemadeofthesource,andofthenameoftheauthorifitappearsthereon.
Thisisamandatoryrequirement,andwhileitmayseemsuperfluousinthelightofArticle6bis,itwasthoughtappropriatethatitshouldbeaddedtoArticle10inordertoremoveanydoubtthattherightofattributionwastoberespectedinthecaseofquotationsandutilizationsmadeunderthatprovision.
35Thismayraiseaproblemasregardstherightof
respectorintegrity:istheapplicationofthisrequirementunderArticle6bistherebyexcludedfromtheprovisionsofArticle10?AstatementintheReportofMainCommitteeIoftheStockholmConferencenotesthatdelegatesweregenerallyagreedthatArticle6bisappliedinrespectofexceptionsauthorizedbytheConvention,includingArticle10.
36However,there
arepracticalreasonsforarguingthatArticle6bisshouldnotapplytotheprovisionsofArticle10.Modificationsandalterationstoaworkareoftennecessarywhereitisquotedorutilizedforteachingpurposes,andtheneedforsuchflexibilityissupportedbytherecordsoftheRomeConference,whereproposedamendmentstomakeborrowingsundertheArticleconformentirelytotheoriginaltextwererejected.37ThequestionofmodificationsandotherchangeshasnotbeenraisedatsubsequentRevisionConferencesinthecontextofArticle10and,fromthis,itcanbeconcludedthat,unliketherightofattribution,therehasbeennoagreementabouttheneedtorespecttherightofintegrityunderArticle10.Intheabsenceofsuchagreement,theapplicationofArticle6bistolawfulquotationsandborrowingscannotthereforebeassumed.
Inaddition,Article10(3)mayfillagapwhichisleftopenbyArticle6bis.UndertheBrusselsAct,thisprovisiondidnotrequiretheprotectionoftherightofattributionafterthedeathoftheauthor,anditisstillpossibleunderArticle6bis(2)oftheStockholm,ParisActsforaUnionmembertodenysuchprotection.Insuchacase,Article10(3)makesitclearthatsuchacountrymuststillaccordthisprotectioninthecaseofquotationsandutilizationsfallingunderArticle10.
Finally,itshouldbenotedthatArticle10(3)isnotconfinedsolelytoattributionofauthorshipanobligationthatonlyariseswheretheauthorsnameappearsontheworkbutitrequiresattributionofsourcepresumablythepublicationdetailsofthework,includingthenameofanylargerworkinwhichtheworkappears.
35Documents1948,245(commentsintheprogramme).SeealsopreliminaryproposalsforthepostponedConferenceof1935:[1933]DA99.
36Records1967,1165.37 Actes1928,252ff.SeefurtherRicketson,paragraph9.28.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
19/86
SCCR/9/7page17
ExceptionsMadefortheBenefitofthePressFromitsinception,theConventionhascontainedprovisionsinfavorofthepress:see
thelimitationsunderArticle2(8)fornewsofthedayandmiscellaneousfactsdiscussedabove.Theotherprovisionsconcernedwithpressusagefallintotwobroadcategories:theuseofArticlesinnewspapersandperiodicals(Article10bis(1))andtheuseofworksforthe
purposesofreportingandinformingthepublic(Articles2bis(2)and10bis(2)).
TheUseofArticlesinNewspapersandPeriodicalsThisisdealtwithinArticle10bis(1)asfollows:
(1)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontopermitthereproductionbythepress,thebroadcastingorthecommunicationtothepublicbywireofArticlespublishedinnewspapersorperiodicalsoncurrenteconomic,politicalorreligioustopics,andofbroadcastworksofthesamecharacter,incasesinwhichthereproduction,broadcastingorsuchcommunicationthereofisnotexpresslyreserved.Nevertheless,thesourcemustalwaysbeclearlyindicated;thelegalconsequencesofabreachofthisobligationshallbedeterminedbythelegislationofthecountrywhereprotectionisclaimed.Althoughpreviouslyamandatoryexception,thisisnowleftasamatterfornational
legislation.Thefollowingcommentscanbemadeaboutitsscope.1. Theactswhichmaybeallowedextendtoreproduction,broadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicbywire.2. NotonlydoesitapplytoArticlespublishedinnewspapersandperiodicals,butalsotobroadcastworksofthesamenature(butnottoworksofthesamenaturethathavebeencommunicatedtothepublicbywire).Italsoappearsthatentireworkscanbetaken.Ontheotherhand,thequalificationthattheseshouldbeArticlesorbroadcastworksoncurrenteconomic,politicalorreligioustopicsexcludesawiderangeofnewspaperandperiodicalwriting,suchasliteraryandartisticreviews,sportsreports,articlesonscientificandtechnicalmattersandsoon.ThewordcurrentalsoindicatesthattheArticlesinquestionmustbeofimmediaterelevance,asthepurposebehindtheexceptionistoexpeditethefreeflowofinformationoncurrentevents.
38LongerArticleswhichreviewthesetopicsinalonger-term
frameworkwouldnotthereforebeincluded.3. TheprovisiondoesnotrefertothereproductionandbroadcastingofArticlesintranslation.
39ItwasnotthoughtnecessarytodothisattheStockholmConference,onthe
basisthattherightoftranslationunderArticle8oftheConventionwasimplicitlysubjecttothesameexceptionsasthoseofreproductionandbroadcasting:
40Seefurtherbelow.
38Note,forexample,thestatementoftheCzechdelegatewhichimpliesthathesawthisasbeingconcernedprincipallywithstatementsbypublicfigures:ibid,859.
39DocS/51:ibid,688.40 Ibid,1149(ReportofMainCommitteeI).
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
20/86
SCCR/9/7page18
4. AswithArticle10(2),whereaworkcoveredbythisprovisionisbroadcastorcommunicatedtothepublicbywire,thismustalsocoveranyfurtherdisseminationthatoccursthroughthereceptionofthebroadcastorwireservice,forexample,whereitisplayedinpublic.
41Inthecaseofreproductions,therecanclearlybenolimitationonthenumberof
copiesmade.5. NationallawsmayimposemorerigorouslimitationsthanthosesetbyArticle10bis(1),ormayrefusetoallowanyderogationswhatsoeverinthesecases.TheonlyconditiontobecompliedwithundertheArticleisthatthesourceoftheArticlemustbeindicated(seefurtherbelow).ThereisalsonoreasonwhyacountryinvokingArticle10bis(1)shouldnotmakesuchusessubjecttothepaymentofacompulsorylicensefee:this,afterall,wouldbealesserderogationthanthatwhichtheprovisionallows.
42
6. AnyexceptionformulatedundernationallawspursuanttothisprovisionmustrequirethatthesourceoftheArticlebeindicated.Thisisapartialrecognitionoftheauthorsrightofattribution,butisdifferentlywordedfromtherequirementinArticle10(3).Underthelatter,compliancewiththisrequirementisnecessaryifthequotationorutilizationinquestionistobelawful.UnderArticle10bis(1),however,thelegalconsequencesofthebreachofthisobligationarelefttobedeterminedbythelegislationofthecountrywhereprotectionisclaimed.Thus,itwouldbeopentonationallegislationtodecreethatabreachinvolvessomelesserpenalty,suchasliabilitytoasumofdamagesorafine,anddoesnotmaketheuseitselfunlawful.
UseofWorksintheReportingofCurrentEventsIncidentalusesofworksinthereportingofcurrenteventsbymeansofphotography,
cinematographyandradioaredealtwithinArticle10bis(2),whichprovidesasfollows:(2)ItshallalsobeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUnionto
determinetheconditionsunderwhich,forthepurposeofreportingcurrenteventsbymeansofphotography,cinematography,broadcastingorcommunicationtothepublicbywire,literaryorartisticworksseenorheardinthecourseoftheeventmay,totheextentjustifiedbytheinformatorypurpose,bereproducedandmadeavailabletothepublic.Thefollowingcommentscanbemadeaboutthisprovision.
1. Thisisnotamandatoryrequirement,butissimplyleftasamatterfornationallegislation.InprovidingfortheusesdetailedinArticle10bis(2),aUnionmembercouldmakeoneoftheconditionsforthistooccurthepaymentofremunerationunderacompulsorylicense.
43ItwouldalsobeopentoaUnionmembernottoprovideforanyoftheseuses.
41Seealsotothesameeffect,Masouy,61.
42Seealsotothesameeffect,Desboisetal,198199.43 SeealsoDesboisetal,201.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
21/86
SCCR/9/7page19
2. Themeansofreportingthatarecoveredbytheprovisionarephotography,cinematography,broadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicbywire.However,itwillbenotedthat,apartfromphotographsandcinematographicfilms,reproductiongenerallyofworksinthecourseofreportingcurrenteventsisnotallowed.SuchuseswillthereforehavetobejustifiedundertherightofquotationinArticle10(1)orasbeingwithinthegeneralexceptionunderArticle9(2).Anexamplewouldbeasoundrecordingofacurrenteventthat
ismadeforsubsequentbroadcast:insofarasthiscontainsareproductionofaprotectedwork,thiswillnotbecoveredbyArticle10bis(2).3. Thesubjectofthereportmustbeacurrentevent,andtheworkinquestionmustbeseenorheardinthecourseoftheevent.Thisplacesanimportanttemporallimitationontheprovision,meaningthatitwouldnotbepermissibleafterthereporthasbeenmadetoembellishitbytheadditionofapictureofaworkofartoramusicalaccompaniment,asneitherofthesewouldhavebeenseenorheardinthecourseoftheevent.4. Theuseoftheworkmustbejustifiedbytheinformatorypurpose.Itwillbeclearthatthisdoesnotallowcarteblancheforthereproductionofwholeworksundertheguiseofreportingcurrentevents:thiswillonlybepermittedwherethenatureoftheworkissuchthatitwouldnotbepossibletomakethereportwithoutdoingso.
44
ReportingofLectures,AddressesandOtherSimilarWorksArticle2bis(2)alsopermitsmemberstatestoregulatetheconditionsunderwhichthese
kindsoforallydeliveredworksmaybeusedforthepurposesofreporting,providingthat:ItshallalsobeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontodetermine
theconditionsunderwhichlectures,addressesandotherworksofthesamenaturewhicharedeliveredinpublicmaybereproducedbythepress,broadcast,communicatedtothepublicbywireandmadethesubjectofpubliccommunicationasenvisagedinArticle11bis(1)ofthisConvention,whensuchuseisjustifiedbytheinformatorypurpose.
45
Thiswillnotinclude,forexample,lectures,addresses,etc,thataredeliveredtoprivategroups,norwillitcoversermons,unlesstheyarecoveredbythecompendioustermotherworksofthesamenature.Thepublicinterestrationaleoftheprovisionisalsomadeexplicit,withtheoverridingrequirementthattheusesitallowsaretobejustifiedbytheinformatorypurpose.Thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheworksreproduced,broadcast,etc,mustthemselvesbenews,solongasthereproduction,broadcast,etc,ismadewiththepurposeofinformingthepublic.Inthisregard,itcontrastswithArticle10bis(2)whichislimitedtoreportingcurrentevents.
44Exampleswouldincludeareportonthededicationofanewpublicsculptureorbuilding,andareportonasportingeventwherethestadiumiscoveredwithvariousworksofart:Ibid,119.45 Stockholm,ParisActs,art2bis(2).
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
22/86
SCCR/9/7page20
ThefollowingfurtherpointsofcomparisonwithArticle10bis(2)shouldbenoted:1. AstheconditionsunderwhichtheusescoveredbyArticle2bis(2)mayoccurarelefttonationallegislation,itislikewiseopentoUnionmemberstomakethemsubjecttocompulsorylicensesandthepaymentofremuneration.2. UnlikeArticle10bis(2),Article2bis(2)doesnotcoverthemakingofacinematographicfilmoftheworkscoveredbytheprovision.
GeneralExceptionConcerningReproductionRightstheThree-StepTestPriortotheStockholmandParisActs,theConventioncontainednogeneralprovision
requiringtherecognitionofreproductionrights.AlthoughithasbeenarguedthattherewasanimplicitrequirementunderearlierActstoprovidesuchprotection,thebetterviewisthatnosuchobligationexisted.
46Accordingly,Unionmemberswerefreetoimposewhatever
restrictionstheywishedonreproductionrights,oreventodenyprotectionaltogether.Inpractice,reproductionrightswereuniversallyrecognizedundernationallegislation,buttheexceptionstotheserightsvariedconsiderablyfromcountrytocountry.TheonlyareasinwhichtheConventiontoucheduponthesematterswereinrelationtothemakingofquotations,newsreportinganduseforteachingpurposes(seeabove),insofarastheseprovisionsallowedforthemakingofsuchexceptionswherereproductionrightswereconcerned.Thesedifferencesmeantthat,intheeventthattheConventionweretoembodyageneralrightofreproduction,carewouldberequiredtoensurethatthisprovisiondidnotencroachuponexceptionsthatwerealreadycontainedinnationallaws.
47Ontheotherhand,
itwouldalsobenecessarytoensurethatitdidnotallowforthemakingofwiderexceptionsthatmighthavetheeffectofunderminingthenewlyrecognizedrightofreproduction.
ThesemattersoccupiedaconsiderableamountoftimeinthepreparatoryworkfortheStockholmRevisionConference,inparticularwhetheranyproposedexceptionshouldlistthespecifiedpurposesthatwerepermissibleorwhetheritmightbepossibletoformulateamoregeneralformulathatcoveredbothexistingandpossiblefutureexceptions.Ultimately,theStockholmConferenceoptedforthegeneralformulaapproach,whichisnowembodiedinArticle9(2)oftheParisAct.Commonlyreferredtoasthethree-steptest,thishasnowcometoenjoysomethingofthestatusofholywrit,providingasfollows:46
SeeRicketson,paragraph8.12.ButnotethatthecontraryviewputbytheBureauoftheBerneUnion(thepredecessorofBIRPI)intheprogramfortheBrusselsRevisionConferenceof1948(DocumentsdelaConferencerunieBruxellesdu5au26juin1946,pp.58);seefurtherNordemanneetal,Englishedition,pp.107,andFicsor,pp.86ff.
47TheStudyGroupnotedinitsworkforthe1967programthattheexceptionsmostfrequentlyrecognizedindomesticlawsrelatedtothefollowingmethodsofuse:(1)publicspeeches,(2)quotations,(3)schoolbooksandchrestomathies,(4)newspaperArticles,(5)reportingofcurrentevents,(6)ephemeralrecording,(7)privateuse,(8)reproductionbyphotocopyinginlibraries,(9)reproductioninspecialcharactersforusebytheblind,(10)soundrecordingofworksfortheblind,(11)textsofsongs,(12)sculpturesonpermanentdisplayinpublicplaces,(13)useofartisticworksinfilmandtelevisionasbackground,and(14)reproductionininterestsofpublicsafety.Tothislistmightbeaddedreproductionsforjudicialandadministrativepurposes,forexample,inthecourseofcourtproceedings:Records1967,Vol.I,112(DocS/1).
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
23/86
SCCR/9/7page21
(2)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontopermitthereproductionofsuchworksincertainspecialcases,providedthatsuchreproductiondoesnotconflictwithanormalexploitationoftheworkanddoesnotunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor.Article9(2)makesnoreferencetopreviousprovisionssuchasArticles10,10bis
and2bis(2)(aswellasArticle13whichisdiscussedbelow)thatweremodifiedandmaintainedatthesametimeintheStockholm/ParisAct.Nonetheless,itseemsclearthattheoperationoftheseprovisionswithintheirspecificsphereisunaffectedbythemoregeneralprovisioninArticle9(2),andthattheusesallowedunderthemarethereforeexcludedfromits
48scope.
Article9(2)stipulatesthreedistinctconditionsthatmustbecompliedwithbeforeanexceptiontothereproductionrightcanbejustifiedundernationallaw.Theseareconsideredinturnbelow,withappropriatereferencesbeingmadetotheviewsoftheWTOPanelwhichrecentlyconsideredtheseconditionsinthecontextoftheTRIPSAgreementdealingwiththehomestyleandbusinessexemptionsforpublicperformancesofmusicalworksundertheUSCopyrightAct1976(seefurtherbelow).
CertainSpecialCasesTheadjectivescertainandspecialsuggestthattheremustbelimitstoanyexception
tothereproductionrightthatismadeunderArticle9(2).Thus,afterconsultingvariousdictionarydefinitionsofcertain(knownandparticularized,butnotexplicitlyidentified,determined,fixed,notvariable;definitive,precise,exact.),
49theWTOPanelstatedthatthis
meantthat:anexceptionorlimitationinnationallawmustbeclearlydefined.However,
thereisnoneedtoidentifyexplicitlyeachandeverypossiblesituationtowhichtheexceptioncouldapply,providedthatthescopeoftheexceptionisknownandparticularized.Thisguaranteesasufficientdegreeoflegalcertainty.
50
Astothemeaningofspecial(havinganindividualorlimitedapplicationorpurpose,containingdetails;precise,specific.)theWTOPanelnotedthatthismeansthatmoreisneeded
thanacleardefinitioninordertomeetthestandardofthefirstcondition.Inaddition,anexceptionorlimitationmustbelimitedinitsfieldofapplicationor
48SeethecommentsbytheMongasquedelegateatibid,885,andthegeneralcommentsoninterpretationintheReportofMainCommitteeI,paragraph14:TheDraftingCommitteewasunanimousinadoptingthedraftingofnewtextsaswellasintherevisionofthewordingofcertainprovisions,theprinciplelexspecialislegigeneraliderogat:specialtextsareapplicable,intheirrestricteddomain,exclusiveoftextsthatareuniversalinscope.Forinstance,itwasconsideredsuperfluoustoinsertinArticle9,dealingwithsomegeneralexceptionsaffectingauthorsrights,expressreferencestoArticles10,10bis,11bisand13establishingspecialexceptions.
49NewSOED,pp.364.50 WTOPanel,pp.33.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
24/86
SCCR/9/7page22
exceptionalinitsscope.Inotherwords,anexceptionorlimitationshouldbenarrowinquantitativeaswellasinaqualitativesense.Thissuggestsanarrowscopeaswellasanexceptionalordistinctiveobjective.Toputthisaspectofthefirstconditionintothecontextofthesecondcondition(noconflictwithanormalexploitation),anexceptionorlimitationshouldbetheoppositeofanon-special,i.e.,anormalcase.
51
Accordingly,thesetwoadjectivesrequirethataproposedexception(case)shouldbebothclearlydefinedandnarrowinitsscopeandreach.ThisinterpretationalsoseemsconsistentwiththecontextandobjectandpurposeoftheConvention,i.e.,asatreatytoconstituteaUnionfortheprotectionoftherightsofauthorsintheirliteraryandartisticworks.Inanygivencase,thiswillinvolveaconsiderationofallaspectsofaproposedexception,includingsuchmattersastheright(s)andworkscovered,thepersonswhomaytakeadvantageofit,andthepurposeoftheexception.
Doesthephrasecertainspecialcasesalsorequirethatthereshouldbesomespecialpurposeorjustificationunderlyingtheexceptionsthataremadeinanationallaw?Thishasbeensuggestedbyseveralcommentators,includingmyself,
52
butisamatteronwhichothercommentatorsaresilent.53Furthermore,althoughtheWTOPanelonthehomestyleexceptionusedtheadjectivesexceptionalanddistinctiveinthiscontext(seethepassagequotedabove),itnonethelesstooksomepainstoindicatethatitwasnottherebyequatingthetermcertainspecialcaseswithspecialpurpose.WhilethePanelwasdealingherewithadifferentinternationalagreement,namelyTRIPS,thelanguageofArticle13isthesameasArticle9(2)andanumberofcommentatorshavearguedthatthefirststepshouldreceivethesameinterpretationunderbothinstruments.Thus,ProfessorGinsburg
54hasarguedcogentlythatthephrasecertainspecialcases
shouldnotreceiveanormativeinterpretation,notingthatthepurposebehindanygivenexceptionwillfalltobetestedbythesecondandthirdstepsofthetestinanyevent,i.e.,whetheritconflictswiththenormalexploitationoftheworkandwhetheritisunreasonablyprejudicialtothelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor.ThereisalsosomesupportforthisapproachonthedraftinghistoryofArticle9(2),anditisthereforesubmittedthatthepreferableviewisthatthephrasecertainspecialcasesshouldnotbeinterpretedasrequiringthatthereshouldalsobesomespecialpurposeunderlyingit.51
WTOPanel,pp.33.52
Ricketson,pp.482NotonlydoIarguethattheuseinquestionshouldbeforaquitespecificpurpose,butthattheremustalsobesomethingspecialaboutthispurpose,specialheremeaningthatitisjustifiedbysomeclearreasonofpublicpolicyorsomeotherexceptionalcircumstance.NoteFicsor,pp.284,takesasimilarview;tosimilareffect,seeReinbotheandvonLewinski,pp.124-125.
53Note,however,thatthisisnotamatterthatisconsideredbyotherleadingcommentators.Forexample,theWIPOGuidetotheBerneConvention,1978,pp.55-56,doesnotcommentonthemeaningofthephrasecertainspecialcases;neitherdotheleadingGermancommentators,Nordemann,Vinck,HertinandMeyer,InternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRightsLaw,VCH,EnglishEd.1990,pp.108-109,ortheleadingFrenchcommentators,Desbois,FranconandKerever,LesConventionsinternationalesdedroitdauteuretdesdroitsvoisins,Dalloz,1976,paragraphs172-173.
54J.Ginsburg,TowardsSupranationalCopyrightLaw?TheWTOPanel;DecisionandtheThree-StepTestforCopyrightExceptions[2001]Revueinternationaledudroitdauteur,January2001.
http:///reader/full/exception%1Awill%1Afall%1Ato%1Abe%1Atested%1Aby%1Athe%1Asecond%1Aand%1Athird%1Asteps%1Aof%1Athe%1Atest%1Ain%1Aany%1Aevent,%1Ai.e.,http:///reader/full/exception%1Awill%1Afall%1Ato%1Abe%1Atested%1Aby%1Athe%1Asecond%1Aand%1Athird%1Asteps%1Aof%1Athe%1Atest%1Ain%1Aany%1Aevent,%1Ai.e., -
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
25/86
SCCR/9/7page23
ConflictwiththeNormalExploitationoftheWorkDictionarymeaningsagainprovideastartingpointherefortheordinarymeaningsof
thewordsnormalandexploitation.Thesecondoftheseisperhapsthemoststraightforward:exploitandexploitationrefertomakinguseoforutilizingforones
ownends,
55and,inthecontextofworks,canbetakenasreferringtotheactivitybywhich
copyrightownersemploytheexclusiverightsgiventothem,includingthereproductionright,toextracteconomicvaluefromtheirrightstothoseworks.
56Asfornormal,thismeans
constitutingorconformingtoatypeorstandard;regular,usual,typical,conventional57
IntheviewoftheWTOPanel,thesedefinitionsgaverisetotwopossibleconnotationsofthephrasenormalexploitation:thefirstofanempiricalnature,i.e.,whatisregular,usual,typicalorordinaryinafactualsense,andthesecondreflectingasomewhatmorenormative,ifnotdynamic,approach,i.e.,conformingtoatypeorstandard.
Undertheempiricalapproach,thequestiontoaskwouldbewhethertheexemptedusewouldotherwisefallwithintherangeofactivitiesfromwhichthecopyrightownerwouldusuallyexpecttoreceivecompensation.Framingthequestioninthisway,however,involvesanobviouscircularity,asProfessorGoldsteinhasnoted:Atleasthistorically,anauthorwillnormallyexploitaworkonlyinthosemarketswhereheisassuredoflegalrights;bydefinition,marketsforexemptedusesfalloutsidetherangeofnormalexploitation.Consequently,itmightbethoughtthattoexpandanexemptionistoshrinkthenormalmarket,whiletoexpandthedefinitionofnormalmarketistoshrinkthepermittedexception.
58Apreferablewayofapproachingthisquestionmightthereforebetopostulate
thattheownerhasthecapacitytoexercisehisorherrightsinfull,withoutbeinginhibitedonewayoranotherbythepresenceofanexemption,andasksimplywhethertheparticularusageissomethingthatthecopyrightownerwouldordinarilyor,perhaps,reasonablyseektoexploit.Thiswouldinvolvelookingatwhatpresentlyisthecase,andwoulddisregardpotentialmodesofexploitationthatmightariseinthefuture.Thenormativeordynamicapproach,ontheotherhand,wouldlookbeyondthispurelyquantitativeassessmentandwouldseektotakeintoaccounttechnologicalandmarketdevelopmentsthatmightoccur,althoughthesemightnotpresentlybeincontemplation.Itisalsoconceivablethatusesthatarepresentlynotcontrolledbycopyrightownersmightsubsequentlybecomeso,astheresultoftechnologicalchangeanexamplemightbeprivatecopyingwherethetransactioncostsinvolvedinmonitoringsuchusesmightnowbereducedbecauseofthenewtechnologies.Onthismorequalitativeordynamicapproach,normalexploitationwillthereforerequireconsiderationofpotential,aswellascurrentandactual,usesormodesofextractingvaluefromawork.
Differenceswillclearlyarise,dependinguponwhichoftheseapproachesisfollowed,butthesecondseemsmoreconsistentwiththecontextoftheBerneConvention,andwithitsobjectandpurpose(Article31oftheViennaTreaty).
55SOED,pp.888.
56WTOPanel,pp.44.
57SOED,pp.1940.
58PaulGoldstein,InternationalCopyright:Principles,LawandPractice5.5(2001).
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
26/86
SCCR/9/7page24
Accordingly,thephrasenormalexploitationshouldbeinterpretedasincludinginadditiontothoseformsofexploitationthatcurrentlygeneratesignificantortangiblerevenue,thoseformsofexploitationwhich,withacertaindegreeoflikelihoodandplausibility,couldacquireconsiderableeconomicorpracticalimportance.
59Accordingly,exceptionsunder
nationallawthatdonotenterintoeconomiccompetition(presentorpotential)withnon-exemptedusesshouldnotbecontrarytothesecondconditionofArticle9(2).Whatis
thecase,then,ofausethatdoesnotenterintoeconomiccompetitionwiththeinterestsofthecopyrightownerbutwhichnonethelesscreatesaneconomicbenefitfortheuser?Shouldthisbeconsideredtobeausewithinthescopeofanormalexploitationofthatwork?Inthisregard,itmustberememberedthatArticle9(2)wasintendedtoaccommodatethoseexceptionsalreadyexistingundernationallaws,someofwhichcouldhavebeenregardedascapableofcreatinganeconomicbenefittotheuser.
60Thiswasexpresslyaddressedas
followsbytheWTOPanel,ininterpretingthesamephrase(doesnotconflictwithanormalexploitation.)inArticle13oftheTRIPSAgreement.
...inourview,noteveryuseofawork,which,inprincipleiscoveredbythescopeofexclusiverightsandinvolvescommercialgain,necessarilyconflictswithanormalexploitationofthatwork.Ifthiswerethecase,hardlyanyexceptionorlimitationcouldpassthetestofthesecondconditionandArticle13mightbeleftdevoidofmeaning,becausenormalexploitationwouldbeequatedwithfulluseofexclusiverights.
61
ThePanelthenwentontosay:Webelievethatanexceptionorlimitationtoanexclusiverightindomestic
legislationrisestothelevelofaconflictwithanormalexploitationofthework(i.e.,thecopyrightorratherthewholebundleofexclusiverightsconferredbytheownershipofthecopyright),ifuses,thatinprinciplearecoveredbythatrightbutexemptedundertheexceptionorlimitation,enterintoeconomiccompetitionwiththewaysthatright-holdersnormallyextracteconomicvaluefromthatrighttothework(i.e.,thecopyright)andtherebydeprivethemofsignificantortangiblecommercialgains.
62
Thereisanotheraspectoftheadjectivenormalthatisnotconsideredinthepassagesabove,namelytheextenttowhichthistermembracesnormativeconsiderationsofthetruetype,i.e.,considerationsastowhatthecopyrightownersmarketshouldcover,aswellasthemoreempiricalinquiriesintowhatispresently,andmaybe,thecase.OnthefactsthataroseintheHomestylecase,therewasnorealneedtoconsiderthis,astheporkbarrelexceptioninissuetherehadnoneofthesignificantjustificationsthatoftenunderliecopyright59
WTOPanel,p48,paragraph6.180.60
Thispointwascommentedupon,albeitindirectly,intheSwedish/BIRPIprogrammefortheStockholmConference:Inthisconnection,the[1964]StudyGroupobservedthat,ontheonehand,itwasobviousthatalltheformsofexploitingaworkwhichhad,orwerelikelytoacquire,considerableeconomicorpracticalimportancemustinprinciplebereservedtotheauthors;restrictionsthatmightrestrictthepossibilitiesopentoauthorsintheserespectswereunacceptable.Ontheotherhand,itshouldnotbeforgottenthatdomesticlawsalreadycontainedaseriesofexceptionsinfavorofvariouspublicandculturalinterestsandthatitwouldbeinvaintosupposethatcountrieswouldbereadyatthisstagetoabolishtheseexceptionstoanyappreciableextent.Records1967,Vol.I,pp.112(DocS/1).
61WTOPanel,pp.48,paragraph6.182.62 WTOPanel,pp.48,paragraph6.183.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
27/86
SCCR/9/7page25
exceptions,suchasfreespeech,scholarship,educationandsoon.63
Inotherinstances,however,thiswillbeanimportantquestion,forexample,wheretheexceptionrelatestoresearchandscholarshiportousesbylibraries,andthequestionthenarisingis,whetherthesearemarketsthatthecopyrightownershouldbeabletocontrolinanormativesense?Normalandnormativeheresuggestaninquirythatlookstonon-economicaswellaseconomicconsiderations,andinevitablyinvolvessomekindofbalancingprocess.
IfonehasregardonlytotheobjectandpurposesoftheBerneConvention(...a
Uniontoprotect,inaseffectiveanduniformmanneraspossible,therightsofauthorsintheirliteraryandartisticworks),thereislittle,ifany,supporttobefoundforsuchabalancingapproach.Interpretationoftreatyprovisions,however,underbothcustomaryinternationallawandtheViennaConvention,requiresthatthisshouldbedoneinthecontextofthetreatyaswellasitsobjectsandpurposes,andthisinvolvesconsiderationofthetextofthetreatyasawhole.Asnotedabove,theBerneConventioncontains,andhascontainedforalongtime,aseriesofprovisionsthatacknowledgethatlimitationsandexceptionstoauthorsrightsmaybemadeincertainspecifiedcircumstancesthatarejustifiedbyothernon-economicpublicpolicyconsiderations:see,forexample,Articles2(4),2bis(1),10(1)and(2),10bis(1)and(2)thathavealreadybeendiscussedabove.Eachoftheseissubjecttodifferingconditions,butisunderpinnedbysomekindofnon-authorcenteredandnon-economicnormativeconsideration,suchasfreedomofinformationandparticipatorydemocracy(Articles2(4)andArticle2bis(1)),criticismandreview(Article10(1)),educationalpurposes(Article10(2)),andnewsreporting(Article10bis(1)and(2)).TheonlydifferencebetweentheseprovisionsandArticle9(2)isthattheformerembody(togreaterorlessextent),inthetextofeachprovision,theresultsofthebalancingprocessthathasbeenachievedbythesuccessiverevisionconferencesthathaveadoptedthem,whereasArticle9(2)isconsciouslyframedasanomnibusorumbrellaprovisionthatisprospectivelyapplicabletoallexceptionstothereproductionright.Viewedagainstthiswidercontextofthetreaty,itthereforeseemslogicaltoconcludethatthescopeoftheinquiryrequiredunderthesecondstepofArticle9(2),doesincludeconsiderationofnon-economicnormativeconsiderations,i.e.,whetherthisparticularkindofuseisonethatthecopyrightownershouldcontrol.ThisinterpretationfurthermoreisconsistentwithwhatistobefoundinthepreparatoryworkfortheStockholmConference,alegitimatesupplementaryaidtotreatyinterpretation.ItwillberecalledherethattheConferenceprogrammecontainedthecomment,thatitshouldnotbeforgottenthatdomesticlawsalreadycontainedaseriesofexceptionsinfavorofvariouspublicandculturalinterestsandthatitwouldbeinvaintosupposethatcountrieswouldbereadyatthisstagetoabolishtheseexceptionstoanyappreciableextent.
64Furthermore,the
recordsoftheConferenceandthevariousamendmentsproposedbydelegatesindicatethattheywereseekingtoreachsomegeneraldescriptionofthepurposesforwhichexceptionsmightbemadethatwouldaccommodatetheexistingpublicinterestexceptionsinnationallaws.Finally,itmustbesaidthatifawhollyeconomicapproachistakentothesecondstepofArticle9(2),thiswillleavelittle,ifany,worktobedonebythethirdstepwhichisconcernedspecificallywiththeinterestsoftheauthor(seefurtherbelow).Leavingasideusesthatarepurelydeminimis,thegreatbulkofusesthatfallwithinArticle9couldberegardedasbeingwithinthescopeofthenormalexploitationofawork,atleastpotentially,astechnologyreducestransactioncosts.AnyfreeusethatispermittedunderArticle9(2)willthereforehavethepotentialofbeinginconflictwithanormaleconomicexploitationofthework,leadingtotheconsequencethatthethirdstepwillneverbereached.Bringingnon
63Id.64 Records1967,Vol.I,pp.112(DocS/1).
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
28/86
SCCR/9/7page26
economicconsiderationsandjustificationsintothesecondstep,however,meansthattheremaywellbeusesthatwillnotbeinconflictwithwhatshouldbewithinthenormalexploitationofthework(inatrulynormativesense),butmaynotsatisfythethirdstep(seefurtherbelow).
Whiletheforegoinghasthesemblanceofcoherence,itnonethelessleavesthe
applicationofthesecondstepofArticle9(2)moreopen-endedanduncertain.Thewordsnormalexploitationgivenoguidanceastothekindsofnon-economicnormativeconsiderationsthatmayberelevanthere,andtheextenttowhichtheymaylimitusesthatwouldotherwisebewithinthescopeofnormalexploitationbythecopyrightowner.Strikingthisbalanceisleftasamatterfornationallegislation.Valuejudgmentswillneedtobemade,andthesewillclearlyvaryaccordingtothesocietyandcultureconcerned.Inkeepingwiththefirststep,however,thesenon-economicpurposeswillneedtobeclearlyandspecificallyarticulated,andwillneedtobesetagainstthestatedobjectiveoftheConvention,whichistheprotectionoftherightsofauthors.Thisindicatesthatsuchjustificationswillneedaclearpublicinterestcharacterthatgoesbeyondthepurelyindividualinterestsofcopyrightusers.Inthisregard,itcanbesaidthattheyshouldbeofanalogoussignificancetothosealreadyacceptedasappropriateunderotherprovisionsoftheBerneConvention,suchasArticle10and10bis.
DoesNotUnreasonablyPrejudicetheLegitimateInterestsoftheAuthorLittleguidanceonthemeaningofthisconditionistobefoundintherecordsofthe
StockholmConference,apartfromtheobservationintheConferenceprogrammethattherewastheconsiderabledifficultyoffindingaformulacapableofsafeguardingthelegitimateinterestsoftheauthorwhilehavingasufficientmarginoffreedomtothenationallegislationtosatisfyimportantsocialorculturalneeds.
65Theadditionalcommentwasofferedthatthe
formulationproposedintheprogrammeseemslikely,however,toofferaguaranteetoalltheopposinginterestsconcerned.TheseremarksindicatethatsomefurtherbalancingofinterestsisrequiredbythethirdstepofArticle9(2),andthisisconfirmedbyaconsiderationofthemeaningsofthekeywordsusedinitsformulation.
Thus,inthepresentcontext,theinterestsinquestionarethoseoftheauthor,notthoseoftheright-holderasinArticle13oftheTRIPSAgreement.AstherightsofauthorsthatareprotectedunderBerneincludebotheconomicandnon-economic(moral)rights(underArticle6bis),itisclearinterestsinArticle9(2)coversbothpecuniaryandnon-pecuniaryinterests.
66
Asforthetermlegitimate,thishasadictionarymeaningofconformableto,sanctionedorauthorizedbylaworprinciple;lawful;justifiable;proper.
67Thiscouldmean
lawfulinapositivistsense,buttheWTOPanelalsonotedthatthishastheconnotationof65
Ibid,VolI,p113(DocS/1,pp.43).66
Nordemannetalatp109makethepointthatthereferencetotheauthorinArticle9(2)shouldalwaysbeinterpretedtoreadauthorandhissuccessorsintitleorotherholderofexclusiveexploitationrightsandgoontosay:Thebalancingofinterestundertakenhereconcernsnotonlythepersonalinterestsoftheauthorbutalsotheeconomicintereststhatcanberepresentedbycopyrightproprietors.InthecaseofArticle13ofTRIPS,however,thiswouldnotnecessarilybethecaseasmoralrightsareexpresslyexcludedfromthescopeofTRIPS67 OED,pp.2496.
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
29/86
SCCR/9/7page27
legitimacyfromamorenormativeperspective.68
Itthereforeseemsreasonabletoconcludethat,whilethephraselegitimateinterestscoversalltheinterests(economicandnon
economic)ofauthorsthataretobeprotectedundertheStockholm/ParisActs,thisisnotanunqualifiedorabsoluteconception:theremustbesomenormativejustificationunderpinningtheseinterests.Inotherwords,thereisapropersphereofapplicationforauthorsinterests,thatisnottobepursuedregardlessofotherconsiderations.Thisappearstobringusback
againtothekindofbalancingprocessthatappliesunderthesecondstepofArticle9(2),althoughclearlythethirdstepgoesfurtherthanconsiderationofjusttheeconomicinterestsoftheauthor.
Asfortheremainingtermsusedinthiscondition,prejudiceconnotesharm,damageorinjury,whileunreasonableandnotunreasonableconnotenotbeingproportionateorwithinthelimitsofreason,notgreatlylessormorethanmightbethoughtlikelyorappropriateorofafair,averageorconsiderableamountorsize.
69Itwillobviouslybe
moredifficulttoshowunreasonableprejudicethanwouldbethecaseifthetestwereprejudicealone.
70Thewordsnotunreasonablyprejudicethereforeallowthemakingof
exceptionsthatmaycauseprejudiceofasignificantorsubstantialkindtotheauthorslegitimateinterests,providedthat(a)theexceptionotherwisesatisfiesthefirstandsecondconditionsstipulatedinArticle9(2),and(b)itisproportionateorwithinthelimitsofreason,i.e.,ifitisnotunreasonable.Therequirementofproportionalityclearlyimpliesthattheremaybeconditionsplacedontheusagethatwillmakeanyprejudicethatiscausedreasonable,forexample,wheretheseinterestsareprotectedthrougharequirementthattheusageshouldbedonesubjecttocertainconditionsorwithincertainguidelines,thatthereshouldbeattribution(wheretheremightotherwisebeunreasonableprejudicetoanauthorsmoralrights),oreventhatpaymentshouldbemadefortheuse.
71
ItisthereforeclearthatexceptionsunderArticle9(2)maytaketheformofeitherfreeusesorcompulsorylicenses,dependingessentiallyonthenumberofreproductionsmade.72
68Ibid.
69SOED,pp.2496(meaningofreasonable).
70 Records1967,VolII,pp.883(observationofProf.EUlmer,chairmanofMainCommitteeI).SoalsotothesameeffectistheWIPOGuidewhichstates:atp56:allcopyingisdamagingtosomedegree:asinglephotocopymaymeanonecopyofthejournalremainingunsoldandiftheauthorhadashareintheproceedsofpublicationhelostit.
71SpecificsupportforthislastpossibilityiscontainedintheReportofMainCommitteeIwhichexpandsuponthefollowingexamplegivenbyProfessorUlmer,thechairofthatcommittee,inthecourseofitsdiscussions:aratherlargenumberofcopiesforuseinindustrialundertakingsmaynotunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor,providedthat,accordingtonationallegislation,anequitableremunerationispaid.Ifasmallnumberofcopiesismade,photocopyingmaybepermittedwithoutpayment,particularlyforindividualorscientificuse.Records1967,Vol.II,pp.1145-1146.ProfessorUlmerscommentsappearatpp.883.
72Tosimilareffect,seeNordemannetalatpp.109:Ingeneral,weconsidertheinterestsoftheauthoralwaystohavebeenunreasonablyinvadedwhenhecandemonstrateareasonableinterestthatthistypeofexploitationshouldremainreservedforhimorthatitshouldpermittedonlyuponpaymentofasuitableroyalty.Thisinterpolationofahalfwayhouse,however,hasbeenstronglycriticizedbytheFrenchcommentators,Desboisetal,asbeingunjustifiedonthegroundthatthedemarcationbetweenthetwokindsofprovision(freeuseorcompulsorylicense)willalwaysbedifficulttodrawinpracticeandthatthecorrectchoicethereforeshouldsimplybebetweenpermissionandprohibition.HenceDesboisetal,pp.207say:Alaverit,
[Footnotecontinuedonnextpage]
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
30/86
SCCR/9/7page28
ContributionstotheMakingofaCinematographicWorkForsakeofcompletenessinoursurvey,referencemustbetoArticle14bis(2)(b),which
hasarestrictedoperationinrelationtothoseBernemembercountrieswhoselawsincludeamongtheownersofcopyrightinacinematographicworkauthorswhohavebroughtcontributionstothemakingofthework.
Wherethisisso,suchauthorsmaynotinthe
absenceofanycontraryorspecialstipulation,objecttothereproduction,distribution,publicperformance,communicationtothepublicbywire,broadcastingoranyothercommunicationtothepublic,ortothesubtitlingordubbingoftexts,ofthework. Thecategoriesofauthorswhoareaffectedherearepotentiallyverylimited,inviewofArticle14bis(3)whichprovidesthat,unlesscontraryprovisionismadeunderthenationallawinquestion,thesepersonsdonotincludeauthorsofscenarios,dialoguesandmusicalworkscreatedforthemakingofthecinematographicfilm,andtheprincipaldirectorofthefilm.However,intheeventthatsuchcategoriesofauthorsarerecognizedunderagivennationallaw,theexceptioncontainedinArticle14bis(2)(b)mustbeapplied,unlessthatlawmakessomecontraryprovision.ThepurposebehindArticle14bis(2)(b)isclearenough:tofacilitatetheexploitationofthecinematographicworkasawhole,andtoensurethatthisisnotrestrictedorinhibitedbyobjectionsfromco-authorswhosecontributionstotheoverallworkmayberegardedascomparativelyminor.ItisinterestingtonotethatinastudybytheInternationalOfficeofWIPO,itwassuggestedthatthiswasalimitationorexceptiontoprotectionwhich,ifcorrectlyapplied,wouldnotconflictwiththenormalexploitationoftheworkorunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsoftheright-holders.
73Neitherofthesecriteria,
however,areincludedinArticle14bis(2)(b)itself,whichprovidesfornoconditionsorrestrictionsonthemakingofthisexception.WhethertheyarerelevantforthepurposesoftheapplicationoftheTRIPSAgreementisconsideredbelow.
(c) CompulsoryLicensesAllowedUndertheBerneConventionIthasalreadybeensuggestedthatanumberoftheexceptionsprovidedforunderthe
ParisActofBerneallowmembercountriestoimposecompulsorylicensesincertaincircumstances.However,itisalsorelevanttonotethatthereareseveralprovisionsoftheConventionthatacknowledgethisspecifically.TheseapplytotherecordingofmusicalworksandwithrespecttotheexclusiverightsrecognizedunderArticle11bis.
CompulsoryLicenseswithRespecttotheRecordingofMusicalWorksThisisprovidedforasfollowsinArticle13(1):
(1)EachcountryoftheUnionmayimposeforitselfreservationsandconditionsontheexclusiverightgrantedtotheauthorofamusicalworkandtotheauthorofanywords,therecordingofwhichtogetherwiththemusicalworkhasalreadybeenauthorizedbythelatter,toauthorizethesoundrecordingofthatmusicalwork,together
[Footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage]lintroductiondelalicenceobligatoireprocdeduneinterpolation,carlaformuledelart.9,al.2nenfaitpastat.Lechoixparatdevoirtrerestreintlapermissionoulinterdiction.TheImplicationsoftheTRIPSAgreementonTreatiesadministeredbyWIPO,publishedin[1996]IndustrialPropertyandCopyright164,171.
73
-
8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
31/86
SCCR/9/7page29
withsuchwords,ifany;butallsuchreservationsandconditionsshallapplyonlyinthecountrieswhichhaveimposedthemandshallnot,inanycircumstances,beprejudicialtotherightsoftheseauthorstoobtainequitableremunerationwhich,intheabsenceofagreement,shallbefixedbycompetentauthority.ThisprovisionwasinsertedaslongagoastheBerlinRevisionof1908,whereit
reflectedapragmaticcompromisethatwasalreadyemergingatthenationallevelbetweenmusicalcopyrightowners(mainlypublishers)andthenewlyemergingrecordingindustry.WhiletheBerlinActrecognizedthattherightofauthorsextendedtothemechanicalreproductionoftheirworks,nationallawswereallowedthepossibilityofintroducingcompulsoryrecordinglicensesinfavoroftherecordingindustry,providingthatindustrywithaguaranteeofaccesstomaterialwhichithad,priortothistime,beenabletousefreeofcharge.Initspresentform,Article13(1)doesnotexpresslymentioncompulsorylicenses,butthereferencetoreservationsandconditionsontheexclusiverecordingrightoftheauthorandthefurtherreferencethatthismustnotbeprejudicialtotherightsoftheauthorstoobtainequitableremunerationindicatethatcompulsorylicensesareclearlycontemplatedasbeingwithinthescopeoftheprovision.
SofarastheinterpretationofArticle13(1)isconcerned,thefollowingfurthercommentscanbemade.1. ItstilloperatesasapermissiblederogationfromthegeneralrightofreproductiongrantedunderArticle9(1).Accordingly,thereisnoobligationonanyUnionmembertoimposereservationsorconditionsontheexerciseofthatrightinrespectoftherecordingofmusicalworksandwords.2. Reservationsandconditionsmayonlybeappliedinrespectofthesoundrecordingofmusicalworksandaccompanyingwords.3. Reservationsandconditionsmayonlybeimposediftherecordingofthemusicalworkandwordshasalreadybeenauthorizedbytheauthor.Thisleavestheauthorwiththeprerogativeofdecidingwhenthefirstmechanicalexploitationofhisworkshalloccur,anditisonlyafterthistimereservationsandconditionsmaybeimposed.Thisprovisionpreserves,insubstance,theauthorsrightofdivulgation,oneofthebasicmoralrightsthatisnotexpresslyrecognizedundertheConvention.4. Inanyevent,thereservationsandconditionsauthorizedbyArticle13(1)donotapplytotherecordingofwordsalone:thesemustaccompanythemusicalwork,asinthecaseofasong,opera,oratorioandsoon.5. Thereservationsandconditionswhichareappliedcanonlyhaveeffectinthecountrywhichhasimposedthem.ThisisamatterthatisalsodealtwithinArticle13(3)whichprovidesthat:
(3)Recordingsmadeinaccordancewithparagraphs(1)ofthisArticleandimportedwithoutpermissionfromthepartiesconcernedintoacountrywheretheyaretreatedasinfringingrecordingsshallbeliabletoseizure.Accordingly,anyimmunitywhichappliestorecordingsthathavebeenlawfullymade
underArticle13(1)appliesonlywithinthec