Permissible Restrictions to Copyright in Continental and Anglo-American legal traditions
Abstract
The article is devoted to the most urgent problems of the functioning of the system of permissible copyright restrictions in different legal orders. Based on the analysis of two legal traditions the following conclusions can be formulated: in civil law countries the formation of a restrictive mechanism depends on such factors as the nature of the three-step test (direct or indirect), the procedure for applying this test (cumulative or noncumulative), the combination of the main evaluation criteria (range of factors, compliance with a specific goal, availability of the work, conscientiousness), availability of alternative tools; in common law countries the formation of such mechanism depends on the existence of a general assessment rule (under the fair use doctrine this rule consists of four factors; under the fair dealing doctrine this rule is replaced by the fairness criterion), additional statutory and non-statutory evaluation criteria (protection of public interest, scope and nature of use, circumstances and purpose of use, the possibility of achieving the goal in another way, etc.). The author comes to the conclusion that such factors as the lack of a general rule or the possibility of its direct application; cumulative application of evaluation criteria; lack of additional criteria; closed list and excessive specification of restrictions; limiting the number of goal and objects have a negative effect on the restrictive mechanism and its adaptability. The article also proves that the problem of excessive rigidity of the assessment system can be solved by the interpretation as well as using additional criteria. The formation of a flexible restrictive mechanism simplifies the process of balancing private and public interests and updating the system of copyright restrictions. A special attention is given to the analysis of some features of legal regulation and to the problem of copyright limitations in the digital environment.
References
Bainbridge D.I. (2009) Intellectual Property. Harlow: Pearson Education, 892 p.
Colston C., Middleton K. (2005) Modern Intellectual Property Law. London: Cavendish, 738 p.
Dreier T. (2007) Regulating Competition by Way of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in Copyright Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 232-254.
Geiger C. (2013) The social function of the intellectual property rights, or how ethics can influence the shape and use of IP Law. Dinwoodie B. (ed.) Methods and Perspectives in Intellectual Property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 400 p.
Geiger C. (2006) Three-Step Test, Threat to Balanced Copyright Law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, no 37, pp. 683-699.
Geiger C., Gervais D., Senftleben M. (2015) Understanding the three-step test. Gervais D. (ed.). International Intellectual Property: a Handbook of Contemporary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 167-189.
Geiger C., Hilty R., Griffiths J., Suthersanen U. (2010) Declaration of Balanced Interpretation of the Three-Step Test in Copyright Law. Available at: https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-1-2-2010/2621/Declaration-Balanced-Interpretation-Of-The-Three-Step-Test.pdf (accessed: 17-12-2018)
Gervais D. (2005) Towards a New Core International Core International Copyright Norm: the Reverse Three-Step Test. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, vol. 9, pp. 1-35.
Guilbault L. (2002) Copyright Limitations and Contracts: An Analysis of the Contractual Overridability of Limitations on Copyright. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 377 p.
Heins M., Beckles T. (2005) Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control: a policy report. New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 67 p.
Hua J.J. (2014) Toward a More Balanced Approach: Rethinking and Readjusting Copyright Systems in the Digital Network Era. Berlin: Springer, 225 p.
Hugenholtz B., Senftleben M. (2012) Fair Use in Europe. In Search of Flexibilities. Amsterdam Law School Research Paper, no 2012-39. Available at: https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Fair%20Use%20Report%20PUB.pdf (accessed: 10-12-2018)
Klein B., Moss G., Edwards L. (2015) Understanding Copyright: Intellectual Property in the Digital Age. London: SAGE, 160 p.
Kur A. (2008) Of Oceans, Islands, and Inland Water — How Much Room for Exceptions and Limitations under the Three Step-Test? Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, no 8, pp. 287-350.
Lee N., Westkamp G., Kur A., Ohly A. (2014) Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity: Convergences and Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 368 p.
Locke J. (2013) Two Treatises of Government. Manchester: Industrial Systems Research, 257 p.
Owen L. (2015) Fair Dealing: a Concept in UK Copyright Law. Learned Publishing, no 3, pp. 229-231.
Patterson L. (1968) Copyright in Historical Perspective. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, pp. 202-212.
Patterson L., Lindberg S. (1991) The Nature of Copyright. A Law of User' Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 274 p.
Ricketson S., Ginsburg J. (2006) International Copyright and Neighboring Rights: the Berne Convention and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 878 p.
Samuelson P. (2017) Justifications for Limitations and Exceptions. Copyright Law in an Age of Limitations and Exceptions. Cambridge: University Press, pp. 12-59.
Sun H. (2007) Overcoming the Achilles Heel of Copyright Law. Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, vol. 5, pp. 267-331.
Senftleben M. (2013) Comparative Approaches to Fair Use: An Important Impulse for Reforms in EU Copyright Law. Dinwoodie G. (ed.) Methods and Perspectives in intellectual property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 400 p.
Senftleben M. (2004) Copyright, Limitations and the Three-step Test. An Analysis of the Three-step Test in International and EC Copyright Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 340 p.
Suthersanen U. (2005) Human Rights and International Copyright Law. Copyright and Free Speech: Comparative and International Analyses. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 426 p.
Westkamp G. (2007) The Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC in the Member States. London: Centre for Commercial Law Studies, 482 p.
Copyright (c) 2019 Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
