Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:56:15.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technische Universitaät Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne-Marie Carstens
Anne-Marie Carstens*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University Law Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Technische Universität Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ or Court) addressed several important copyright issues stemming from a practice that continues to confound many legal practitioners and adjudicators: the mass digitization of library collections. The judgment adds to an emerging body of jurisprudence decided in the context of a trend toward greater digitization that could ultimately facilitate the development of a global, digital library. To date, the jurisprudence has largely been formed by cases challenging mass digitization that are percolating through the United States courts and have attracted international attention and criticism. The ECJ decision thus provides an important point of reference for evaluating how different jurisdictions balance the rights of authors against the public interest, as served by relevant fair use exceptions consistent with their international obligations under traditional copyright treaties, the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) applicable to all WTO member states.

Keywords

Copyrightmass digitization of library collectionsright to communicatefair useEuropean Union Information Society Directive 2001/29/ECWIPO Copyright Treaty
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 109 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 161 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C-117/13, Technische Universitaät Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG (Eur. Ct. Justice Sept. 11, 2014). Documents of the Court cited herein are available at its website, http://curia.europa.eu.

2 See, e.g., Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), appeal docketed, No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2013, argued Dec. 3, 2014); Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014), aff’g in part, vacating in part, & remanding 902 F.Supp.2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

3 WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/94, 36 ILM 65 (1997), available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P83_10885; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Art. 13, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 UNTS 299, reprinted in World Trade Organization, The Legal Texts: The Results Of the Uruguay Round Of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 321 (1999) [hereinafter TRIPs].

4 Case C-117/13, Technische Universitaät Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG, Opinion of Advocate General Jaäaäskinen, para. 4 & n.3 (Eur. Ct. Justice June 5, 2014) (citing Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)).

5 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, 2001 O.J. (L 167) 10, 15 [hereinafter Directive].

6 Id., Arts. 2–3.

7 Id., Art. 5(2) (c).

8 Id., Art. 5(3)(n).

9 Id.

10 Id., Art. 5(5); see also WIPO Copyright Treaty, supra note 3, Art. 10; TRIPs, supra note 3, Art. 13.

11 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Art. 9, Sept. 9, 1886, as amended July 24, 1971, 1161 UNTS 30, available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698; WIPO Copyright Treaty, Art. 1(4); TRIPs, Art. 9.

12 WIPO Copyright Treaty, Art.1(4) n.1, Agreed Statements Concerning Article 1(4) [hereinafter Agreed Statements].

13 Quoting Directive, supra note 5, Art. 5(2) (c).

14 Agreed Statements, supra note 12.

15 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Settlement Proposal on Behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany at 3, Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 05-cv-8136 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2009) [hereinafter Memorandum of Law].

16 Google Books History (n.d.), at https://www.google.com/googlebooks/about/history.html.

17 Memorandum of Law, supra note 15. The proposed settlement was rejected by the court. Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 770 F.Supp.2d 666 (2011).

18 17 U.S.C. §108 (2013).

19 Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

20 Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014).

21 Google, 954 F.Supp.2d at 291–92.

22 Id.

23 HathiTrust, 755 F.3d at 91.

24 Memorandum of Law, supra note 15, at 1, 4–5, 9–10.

25 Chin, Denny, Litigating Copyright Cases: A View from the Bench, 59 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 185, 200 (2012)Google Scholar. “An ‘orphan work’ is an out-of-print work that is still in copyright, but whose copyright holder cannot be readily identified or located.” HathiTrust, 755 F.3d at 92.

26 ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2498, 2511 (2014).

27 Australian Law Reform Commission, Discussion Paper 79, Copyright and the Digital Economy (2013), available at http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/dp79_whole_pdf_.pdf.