{"id":7639,"date":"2025-12-23T11:24:57","date_gmt":"2025-12-23T09:24:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/?page_id=7639"},"modified":"2026-02-04T10:58:32","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T08:58:32","slug":"2025-2-1","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/2025-2-1\/","title":{"rendered":"2025-2-1"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Theory and practice of intellectual property
\u2116 2 \/ 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\" PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/22025.332476<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Submitted     2025-05-06
Accepted      2025-05-18
Published      2025-06-16<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

The \u0441oncept of originality of a work in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Olena Starchenko<\/strong>
Ph.D. (Law), Researcher of the Copyright and Related Rights Department of the Intellectual Property Scientific Research Institute of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine
Ukraine
https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0002-3252-4338<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Abstract
<\/strong>The article is devoted to the analysis of the content of key judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of the legal category of a work\u2019s originality, namely: Infopaq International A\/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5\/08), Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others (C-145\/10), Football Dataco Ltd v. Yahoo! UK Ltd (C-604\/10), and Cofemel \u2013 Sociedade de Vestu\u00e1rio SA v. G-Star Raw CV (C-683\/17). The significance of these judgements for the development of a coherent concept of originality is outlined. It is emphasized that the interpretative function of the Court is fundamental and plays an essential role in shaping the legal order in a global sense by harmonizing the mechanisms of legal enforcement within the EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The author draws attention to the evolution and refinement of the substantive understanding of the notion of originality in the course of the Court\u2019s interpretative practice. The article substantiates the close connection between a work\u2019s originality and creative activity. Particular emphasis is placed on the analysis of the essential elements of originality, such as free and creative choices, the personal contribution of the author, and intellectual creative activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The author formulates scholarly conclusions regarding the key components of the concept of originality. A critical analysis is conducted on the adequacy of the current legal model for determining the protectability of a work within the EU legal space. It is concluded that the existing flexible legal framework allows for the assessment of originality in each individual case, taking into account the specific characteristics of the object and the nature of the activity that led to its creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article emphasizes that the foundation of originality lies in creative activity, which is the quintessence of imagination and the author\u2019s individual vision, based on personal preferences and resulting in a unique object of copyright. Thus, the specific work embodies an idea of the author that originates from their creative search, realized through intellectual creative activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords: <\/strong>originality, Court of Justice of the EU, copyright, interpretation<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C. 202, 1\u2013388.
https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:12016E\/TXT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u041a\u043e\u043c\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430 \u0422. \u0412. \u0421\u0443\u0434 \u0404\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0439\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0421\u043e\u044e\u0437\u0443: \u0440\u043e\u0437\u0432\u0438\u0442\u043e\u043a \u0441\u0443\u0434\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0457 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c\u0438 \u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0438 \u0442\u043b\u0443\u043c\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 \u0404\u0421 : \u043c\u043e\u043d\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0444\u0456\u044f. \u0425\u0430\u0440\u043a\u0456\u0432 : \u041f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e, 2018. 528 \u0441.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judgment of the Court of 16 July 2009 in case C-5\/08, Infopaq International A\/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Council Directive 91\/250\/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L 122, 17.5.1991, pp. 42\u201346.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Directive 96\/9\/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, pp. 20\u201328.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judgment of the Court of 1 December 2011 in case C-145\/10, Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and others, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judgment of the Court of 1 March 2012 in case C-604\/10, Football Dataco Ltd, Football Association Premier League Ltd, Football League Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd, Stan James (Abingdon) Ltd, Stan James plc, Enetpulse ApS, ECLI:EU:C:2012:115.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2019 in case C-683\/17, Cofemel \u2013 Sociedade de Vestu\u00e1rio SA v G-Star Raw CV, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Directive 2001\/29\/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, pp. 10\u201319.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0428\u0442\u0435\u0444\u0430\u043d \u0410. \u0421. \u0424\u0435\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d \u0442\u0432\u043e\u0440\u0447\u043e\u0457 \u0434\u0456\u044f\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 \u0432 \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0456. \u0422\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0456\u044f \u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456. 2018. \u2116 4. \u0421. 5\u221213.
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/42018.159146<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rosati E. (2023). Copyright at the CJEU: Back to the start (of copyright protection). In H. Bosher & E. Rosati (Eds.), Developments and Directions in Intellectual Property Law: 20 Years of The IPKat. Oxford University Press.
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/oso\/9780192864475.001.0001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rosati E. (2018). Why originality in copyright is not and should not be a meaningless requirement. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13 (8), 597\u2013598.
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jiplp\/jpy084<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Theory and practice of intellectual property\u2116 2 \/ 2025 ISSN (Print) 2308-0361ISSN (Online) 2519-2744 DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/22025.332476 Submitted     2025-05-06Accepted      2025-05-18Published      2025-06-16 The \u0441oncept of originality of a work in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union Olena StarchenkoPh.D. (Law), Researcher of the Copyright and Related Rights Department of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-7639","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7639","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7639"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7639\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8191,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7639\/revisions\/8191"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}