Copyright, Technology and the CJEU An Empirical Study
Tito Rendas
1. Background 2. Research questions 3. Empirical study 4. Conclusions
1. Background
technology-enabled uses
scope of rights + exceptions
EU framework of rights and exceptions
i) Economic rights with broad scope ii) Broad interpretation of rights iii) Rule-like exceptions iv) Strict interpretation of exceptions v) Closed catalogue of exceptions vi) Restrictive three-step test
critique
lack of flexibility
h"ps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Straitjacket#/media/File:Straitjacket-rear.jpg
technological innovation
yet courts decide flexibly
h"p://think0.deviantart.com/art/Germany-Grunge-Flag-121207694
Vorschaubilder I
thumbnails
“simple consent”
h"p://think0.deviantart.com/art/Spain-Grunge-Flag-112653575
Megakini v. Google Spain
caching
good faith +
abuse of rights +
ius usus inocui
no “absurd” conclusions
strict interpretation
h"p://media.nu.nl
“liberal”
h"p://www.wikihow.com/Escape-from-a-Straitjacket
2. Research questions
Research question #1: What is the relative prevalence of infringing and non-infringing outcomes?
Research question #2: Is the CJEU abiding by the constraints or is it deciding flexibly?
3. Empirical study
research sample
Criterion #1: Decisions on the lawfulness of technology-enabled uses
Criterion #2: Decisions that turn on at least one of the six constraints
21 cases
27 tech-enabled uses
InfoSoc (17)
Software (3)
Rental & Lending (1)
reproduction (11)
communication (10)
public lending (1)
methodology
content analysis
coding
findings
infringing vs. non-infringing
infringing vs. non-infringing (11) (16)
41%
59% 56%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Infringing Non-infringing
CJEU AG
flexible vs. inflexible
flexible vs. inflexible (71%) (29%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Narrow interpretation of right
Broad interpretation of exception(s)
No/summary assessment of three-
step test
Creation of exception / users' right
4. Conclusions
legal certainty
fair use
the end. [email protected]
Top Related