2020-1-1 – Theory and practice of intellectual property

Theory and practice of intellectual property
№ 1 / 2020

ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744

PDF (Ukrainian)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33731/12020.200227

Published 2020-04-07

Limitations and exceptions of economic copyright: balance of private and public interests

Liubov Maidanyk
Ukraine
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1794-4513

Abstract
The article is devoted to the research of the balance between private and public interests through the concept of exceptions and limitations on economic rights of author. The concept of free use of works applied in the legislation of Ukraine is analyzed, as well as exceptions and limitations on copyrights inherent in the copyright of the European Union. It is concluded that the concept of «free use» in the context of copyright is not used in the legislation of most countries of the world, and is inherent in the Ukrainian Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights». Copyright limitations and exceptions in the specific cases are envisaged in the laws of different countries of the world by the following two main systems: a system of general abstract principles implemented in common law countries (‘fair use’ in the US and ‘fair dealing’ in the UK, Canada). The first approach is characterized by the fact that a generally exhaustive list of ways of free use of works is provided for in a legislative act and does not allow for the consideration of additional general principles. The second, implies that the court applies the general principles (first and foremost the principle of fair use) and pre-established criteria to determine the lawfulness of a use. The three-step test of the Berne Convention and its relevance to the copyright of Ukraine and the EU are being analyzed. The three-step test, as one of the means of ensuring a balance of private and public interest in copyright, can be used both in law-making and in court-specific dispute resolution. The different approaches to copyright exceptions proposed in the draft Wittem Group’s copyright code are explored compared to those existing in the European Union Directive on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is noted that the draft Wittem Group’s Copyright Code differs from that adopted in the EU and Ukraine in that it provides for an open list of cases of use of copyright objects, thereby altering the existing balance of interests towards the public. Copyright restrictions in the said Directive apply to specific proprietary rights under certain conditions, which may include the purpose, subjects and specific scope, which provides for a list of exceptions and restrictions that are considered to be closed and not subject to extended interpretation in their content.

Keywords: exceptions and limitations in copyright, free use of works, balance of interests

References

Майданик Л. Р. Принципи авторського права України: поняття, види, система. Право України. 2017. № 11. С. 181−188.

Троцька В. Сутність вільного використання об’єктів авторського права та суміжних прав. Теорія і практика інтелектуальної власності. 2014. № 4. С. 19−28.

Луткова О. Конвенционное регулирование свободного использования произведений в трасграничном коммерческом обороте.
https://www.kiaplaw.ru/press-centr/public/konvencionnoe-regulirovanie.html

Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС.
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/november/tradoc_155103.pdf

R. Hilty & S. Nérisson, Balancing Copyright – A Survey of National Approaches, p. 1−78, Springer, 2012; Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-05. Р. 20.

Arnold, Richard and Rosati, Eleonora, Are National Courts the Addressees of the InfoSoc Three-Step Test? (July 6, 2015). (2015) 10(10) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 741-749 .
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2627014

Проект Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» від 03.2019 № 10143.
http://search.ligazakon.ua/l_doc2.nsf/link1/JH7TR00A.html

Рішення Європейського суду справедливості по справі C‑435/12.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=E7AC1C113FDD0E4C15165CBDAB6E4571?text=&docid=150786&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=16878

Капіца Ю.М. Право інтелектуальної власності Європейського Союзу: формування, інститути, напрями розвитку. 2017. С. 161.

Зелена книга щодо розповсюдження аудіовізуальних творів у Європейському Союзі: можливості та виклики у напрямі створення єдиного цифрового ринку. Сайт Європейської комісії.
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/single-market-intellectual-property-rights

Європейський кодекс авторського права.
https://www.ivir.nl/copyrightcode/european-copyright-code/

Jane C. Ginsburg. European Copyright Code –Back to First Principles (with some additional detail). P. 26−27.
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=725114106069104019078070073109077074039034001032090029097069107029094008077031110025033036016025122120037084104119101002110119039072071083031123029002115074097015059075013007106108023097090074111101116086093030103007009075096068006005023029012119086&EXT=pdf

Рішення Європейського суду справедливості по справі C-516/17 Spiegel Online.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text&docid=216543&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir&occ=first&part=1&cid=4742136

About Us

Contact Info