wipo study on limitations and exceptions of copyright and related rights in the digital environment

8/7/2019 WIPO STUDY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT

1/86

ESCCR/9/7ORIGINAL:EnglishWIPO DATE:April5,2003

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATIONGENEVA

STANDINGCOMMITTEEONCOPYRIGHTANDRELATEDRIGHTS

NinthSessionGeneva,June23to27,2003

WIPOSTUDYONLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSOFCOPYRIGHTANDRELATEDRIGHTSINTHEDIGITALENVIRONMENT

preparedbyMr.SamRicketsonProfessorofLaw,UniversityofMelbourneandBarrister,Victoria,Australia


2/86

SCCR/9/7pagei

TABLEOFCONTENTSPage

INTRODUCTIONSCOPEOFTHESTUDY.........................................................................2THEROLEOFLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONS............................................................3ANOTEONTREATYINTERPRETATION..........................................................................5LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEBERNECONVENTION....................10

ADOPTIONOFTHETHREE-STEPTESTASAHORIZONTALPROVISION

THESTYLEOFLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSALLOWEDBY

APPLICATIONOFTHETHREE-STEPTESTTOSPECIFICAREASOF

(a) LimitationsonProtection......................................................................................10(b) ExceptionstoProtection........................................................................................11(c) CompulsoryLicensesAllowedUndertheBerneConvention...............................28(d) ImpliedExceptionsUndertheConvention...........................................................33(e) OtherLimitationsonAuthorsRightsImposedinthePublicInterest..................40

LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEROMECONVENTION......................44(a) SpecificExceptions:Article15(1).......................................................................44(b) LimitationsContainedinDomesticLaws:Article15(2).....................................45

LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHETRIPSAGREEMENT........................46(a) TRIPSandBerneConvention...............................................................................46(b) TRIPSandtheRomeConvention..........................................................................55

LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEWCT....................................................56LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEWPPT..................................................64

APPLYINGGENERALLYTOLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONS.................................65

THETHREE-STEPTEST.......................................................................................................67(a) FairUseUnderSection107oftheUSCopyrightAct1976.................................67(b) ClosedList:Article5ofECDirective.................................................................70(c) AnotherApproachTheAustralianLegislation.....................................................73

COMPULSORYLICENSES...................................................................................................73

CONCERN...............................................................................................................................74(a) PrivateCopying.....................................................................................................74(b) PublicInterest........................................................................................................75(c) LibrariesandArchives...........................................................................................75(d) Education...............................................................................................................76


3/86

SCCR/9/7pageii

(e) AssistingVisuallyorHearingImpairedPeople....................................................76(f) NewsReporting.....................................................................................................77(g) CriticismandReview............................................................................................78(h) UsesintheDigitalEnvironment............................................................................78(i) TransientCopying.................................................................................................79(j)

RealTimeInternetStreaming................................................................................

80

(k) PeertoPeerSharing...............................................................................................80

TECHNOLOGICALMEASURES..........................................................................................80


4/86

SCCR/9/7page2

INTRODUCTIONSCOPEOFTHESTUDYThepresentStudyisintendedtooutlinethemainlimitationsandexceptionsto

copyrightandrelatedrightsprotectionthatexistunderthefollowinginternationalconventions:TheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks1886(mostrecentlyrevisedatParisin1971theParisActofBerne)

TheInternationalConventionfortheProtectionofPerformers,ProducersofPhonogramsandBroadcastingOrganizations1961(theRomeConvention)TheAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(theTRIPSAgreement)

TheWIPOCopyrightTreaty1996(theWCT) TheWIPOPerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty1996(theWPPT)Whilethestudyisconcernedprincipallywiththelimitationsandexceptionsthatthese

provisionsimposeasamatterofinternationallaw,1someattentionwillalsobepaidto

differentnationalapproachestotheirapplication,inparticularwithrespecttothedigitalenvironment.

Inthisregard,theauthorhasdrawnonhispreviouswritingsinthisarea,inparticularfrom:S.Ricketson,TheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks:1886-1986,CentreforCommercialLawStudies,QueenMaryCollege,London,1987,chapter9(RicketsonI);SRicketson,TheBoundariesofCopyright:ItsProperLimitationsandExceptionsInternationalConventionsandTreaties,IntellectualPropertyQuarterly(UK),Issue1,56-94,(1999)(RicketsonII);SRicketson,TheThree-stepTest,DeemedQuantities,librariesandClosedExceptions,AdvicepreparedfortheCentreofCopyrightStudiesLtd.,CentreforCopyrightStudies,Sydney2003(RicketsonIII).

1


5/86

SCCR/9/7page3

THEROLEOFLIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSIthaslongbeenrecognizedthatrestrictionsorlimitationsuponauthors,andrelated

rightsmaybejustifiedinparticularcases.Thus,attheoutsetofthenegotiationsthatledtotheformationoftheBerneConventionin1884,thedistinguishedSwissdelegateNumaDrozstatedthatitshouldberememberedthatlimitstoabsoluteprotectionarerightlysetbythe

publicinterest.

2Inconsequence,fromtheoriginalBerneActof1886,

3theBerne

Conventionhascontainedprovisionsgrantinglatitudetomemberstatestolimittherightsofauthorsincertaincircumstances.Inkeepingwiththisapproach,thepresentinternationalconventionsonauthorsandrelatedrightscontainamixtureoflimitationsandexceptionsonprotectionthatmaybeadoptedundernationallaws.Thesecanbegrouped,veryroughly,underthefollowingheadings:1. Provisionsthatexclude,orallowfortheexclusionof,protectionforparticularcategoriesofworksormaterial.ThereareseveralstrikinginstancesofsuchprovisionsintheParisActofBerne:forofficialtextsofalegislative,administrativeandlegalnature(Article2(4)),newsoftheday(Article2(8)),andspeechesdeliveredinthecourseoflegalproceedings(Article2bis(1)).Forthepurposesofanalysis,thesemightbedescribedaslimitationsonprotection,inthesensethatnoprotectionisrequiredfortheparticularkindofsubject-matterinquestion.2. Provisionsthatallowforthegivingofimmunity(usuallyonapermissive,ratherthanmandatory,basis)frominfringementproceedingsforparticularkindsofuse,forexample,wherethisisforthepurposesofnewsreportingoreducation,orwhereparticularconditionsaresatisfied.Thesecanbetermedpermitteduses,orexceptionstoprotection,inthattheyallowfortheremovalofliabilitythatwouldotherwisearise.InthecaseoftheParisActofBerne,examplesaretobefoundinArticles2bis(2)(reproductionandcommunicationtothepublicofpublicaddresses,lectures,etc,bythepress),9(2)(certainexceptionstothe2

SeeActesdelaConfrenceinternationalepourlaprotectiondesdroitsdauteurrunieBernedu8au19septembre1884,pp.67(closingspeechtothe1884Conference).

3Foreaseofreference,theearlierversionsoftheBerneConventionarereferredtoasActsandarequalifiedbythenameoftheplaceatwhichtheywereadoptedbyarevisionconference.Thus:BerneAct1886theoriginaltextadoptedatBernein1886(therewereearlierdrafttextsof1884and1885respectivelythatwereproducedforthesuccessiverevisionconferencesofthoseyears.ParisAdditionalAct1896theAdditionalActoftheConventionformulatedinParis1896.BerlinAct1908revisionformulatedatBerlin1908.RomeAct1928revisionformulatedatRome1928.BrusselsAct1948revisionformulatedatBrussels1948.StockholmAct1967revisionformulatedatStockholm1967.ParisAct1971revisionformulatedatParis1971(arts1-21thesameasinStockholmAct).Foreaseofreference,thefollowingabbreviationsareusedtorefertotherecordsoftheaboveconferences:Actes1884:ActesdelaConfrenceinternationalepourlaprotectiondesdroitsdauteurrunieBernedu8au19septembre1884;Actes1885:Actesdela2meConfrenceinternationalepourlaprotectiondesuvreslittrairesetartistiquesrunieBernedu7au18septembre1885;Actes1886:Actesdela3meConfrenceinternationalepourla

protectiondesuvreslittrairesetartistiquesrunieBernedu6au9septembre1886.Actes1896:ActesdelaConfrencedeParisde1896;Actes1908:ActesdelaConfrencedeBerlin1908;Actes1928:ActesdelaConfrencerunieRomedu7maiau2juin1928:Documents1948:DocumentsdelaConfrencerunieBruxellesdu5au26juin1948.Records1967:RecordsoftheIntellectualPropertyConferenceofStockholm,June11toJuly14,1967;Records1971:RecordsoftheParisConference1971(Paris,July5to24,1971).


6/86

SCCR/9/7page4

reproductionright,subjecttospecificconditions),10(quotationanduseforteachingpurposes)and10bis(certainusesforreportingofnewsandthelike).Analogousexceptionsaretobefoundinart15oftheRomeConvention,whiletheTRIPSAgreement(Article13),theWCT(Article10)andtheWPPT(Article16)adoptandextendthetemplateofthethreeconditionsinArticle9(2)ofBerneasthebasisforexceptionsthataretobeappliedgenerallyunderthatagreement(thethree-steptest,ofwhichmorebelow).

3. Byprovisionsthatallowaparticularuseofcopyrightmaterial,subjecttothepaymentofcompensationtothecopyrightowner.Theseareusuallydescribedascompulsoryorobligatorylicenses,andspecificdispositionspermittingthemarefoundinArticles11bis(2)and13,andtheAppendixoftheParisActofBerne.Itisalsopossiblethatsuchlicensesmaybeallowableunderotherprovisionsofthisandtheotherconventionslistedabove,wherecertainconditionsaremet.

Thejuridicalandpolicybasisforeachkindofprovisionisdifferent.Thefirstproceedsontheassumptionthatthereareclearpublicpolicygroundsthatcopyrightprotectionshouldnotexistintheworksinquestion,forexample,becauseoftheimportanceoftheneedforreadyavailabilityofsuchworksfromthepointofviewofthegeneralpublic.Thesecondrepresentsamorelimitedconcessionthatcertainkindsofusesofworksthatareotherwiseprotectedshouldbeallowed:thereisapublicinterestpresentherethatjustifiesoverridingtheprivaterightsofauthorsintheirworksintheseparticularcircumstances.Inthethirdcategoryofcases,theauthorsrightscontinuetobeprotectedbutaresignificantlyabridged:publicintereststilljustifiesthecontinuanceoftheuse,regardlessoftheauthorsconsent,butsubjecttothepaymentofappropriateremuneration.Instancesofallthreekindsofprovisionsaretobefoundineachoftheconventionsthatarethesubjectofthepresentstudy,althoughtheyaremostdevelopedinthecaseoftheParisActofBerne.Forthemostpart,theyarenotmademandatory,butareleftasmattersforthenationallegislationofmemberstatestodetermineforthemselves,albeitusuallywithinstrictboundariesthataresetbytheprovisioninquestion.


7/86

SCCR/9/7page5

ANOTEONTREATYINTERPRETATIONEachofthelimitationsandexceptionsthatisconsideredinthisstudyiscontainedina

multilateralinternationalagreementortreaty.Bytheirnature,treatyprovisionsareusuallyexpressedinmoregeneralandopen-ended

languagethan,say,provisionsinnationallegislation,orconditionsinacontractbetweenparties.Nonetheless,therearegenerallyacceptedrulesorcanonsoftreatyconstructionthatneedtobeapplied.ForthreeofthetreatiesdealtwithinthisStudytheBerneandRomeConvention

4andtheTRIPSAgreement,5theserulesofinterpretationaretobefoundin

customarypublicinternationallaw.ThetwolatesttreatiesaregovernedbytherulescontainedintheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,inparticularthosecontainedinArticles31and32.Forallpracticalpurposes,however,itisacceptedthatArticles31and32codifycustomarypublicinternationallawonthematterscoveredinthoseArticles.Inthetreatmentthatfollows,forthesakeofconveniencereferencewillonlybemadetoArticles31and32,eveninthecaseofthosetreaties,suchasBerne,RomeandTRIPS,towhichtheViennaConventiondoesnotstrictlyapply.

Articles31and32areworthsettingoutinfullbeforewebeginourconsiderationofparticulartreatyprovisions.

31(1) Atreatyshallbeinterpretedingoodfaithinaccordancewiththeordinarymeaningtobegiventothetermsofthetreatyintheircontextandinthelightofitsobjectandpurpose.

(2) Thecontextforthepurposeoftheinterpretationofatreatyshallcomprise,inadditiontothetext,includingitspreambleandannexes:(a)anyagreementrelatingtothetreatywhichwasmadebetweenallthepartiesinconnectionwiththeconclusionofthetreaty;(b)anyinstrumentwhichwasmadebyoneormorepartiesinconnectionwiththeconclusionofthetreatyandacceptedbytheotherpartiesasaninstrumentrelatedtothetreaty.

(3) Thereshallbetakenintoaccounttogetherwiththecontext:(a)anysubsequentagreementbetweenthepartiesregardingtheinterpretationofthetreatyortheapplicationofitsprovisions;(b)anysubsequentpracticeintheapplicationofthetreatywhichestablishestheagreementofthepartiesregardingitsinterpretation;(c)anyrelevantrulesofinternationallawapplicableintherelationsbetweentheparties.

4ThisisbecauseboththesetreatieswereformulatedbeforetheentryintoforceoftheViennaConvention.

5Althoughthisisalateragreement,thereisaprovisioninArticle3(2)oftheUnderstandingon

DisputeSettlementtowhichTRIPSissubjectthatdisputepanelsaretoconstruetheTRIPSAgreementinaccordancewiththecustomaryrulesofinterpretationofpublicinternationallaw.ItappearsthatthereasonforthisisthattheUSA,animportantmemberofTRIPS,isnotapartytotheViennaConvention.SeefurtherN.W.Netanel,TheDigitalAgendaoftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganiZation:Comment:TheNextRound:TheImpactoftheWIPOCopyrightTreatyonTRIPSDisputeSettlement(1997)37VirginiaJournalofInternational

Law441,449.Atthesametime,itappearsthattheUSAtakestheviewthattheprovisionsoftheViennaConventionreflectcustom:seefurther1Restatement(Third)oftheForeignRelationsLawoftheUnitedStates145(1986).


8/86

SCCR/9/7page6

(4) Aspecialmeaningshallbegiventoatermifitisestablishedthatthepartiessointended.

32 Recoursemaybehadtosupplementarymeansofinterpretation,includingthepreparatoryworkofthetreatyandthecircumstancesofitsconclusion,inordertoconfirmthemeaningresultingfromtheapplicationofArticle31,ortodeterminethe

meaningwhentheinterpretationaccordingtoArticle31: (a)leavesthemeaningambiguousorobscure;or(b)leadstoaresultwhichismanifestlyabsurdorunreasonable.Itwillbeseenthattheprimarytaskofinterpretationistoascertaintheordinary

meaningofthetermsofthetreatyintheircontextandinthelightofitsobjectandpurpose(Article31(1)).Sofarasthecontextisconcerned,thematterslistedinArticle31(2)and(3)arestrictlyobjectiveinnature:thetextitself,thepreambleandannexes,anyancillaryandsubsequentagreementsmadebytheparties,theirsubsequentpracticeinrelationtotreatyobligations,andsuchrulesofinternationallawasmaybeapplicabletotheirinterpretation.OfparticularrelevancetotheprovisionsthatwewillconsiderinthisStudyisthereferenceinArticle31(2)(a)toanyagreementrelatingtothetreatywhichwasmadebetweenallthepartiesinconnectionwiththeconclusionofthetreaty.Suchagreementswouldincludeanyagreedstatementconcerningtheinterpretationofaparticularprovisionthatwasadoptedbythepartiesatthetimeofadoptingtheformaltreatytext.Suchagreedstatementsmaybeclearlyidentifiedassuch(asinthecaseoftheWCTandWPPT,bothofwhichhaveastringofsuchstatementsattachedtothem),butcanalsobecontainedinparticularpassagesintheofficialconferencereports(ashappenedattheBrusselsandStockholmRevisionConferences).Italsoseemsthatsuchagreementsmayincludeuncontestedinterpretationsgivenatadiplomaticconference,e.g.,bythechairmanofadraftingcommitteeorplenarysession.

6Agreementsofthiskindarethereforenotsimplypart

ofthepreparatoryworkofthetreaty,whichmayonlybeusedasasupplementarymeansofinterpretationpursuanttoArticle32,butwillformpartofthecontextofthetreatyfortheprimarytaskofinterpretationunderArticle31(1).

7

Theobjectandpurposeofthetreatyarealsoimportantintheinterpretationoftreatyprovisions(seeArticle31(1)),butitseemsthatthisisasecondaryorsubsidiaryprocess.Theprimaryinquiryisfortheordinarymeaningofthetermsofthetreatyintheircontext(seethepreviousparagraph),anditisinthelightoftheobjectandpurposeofthetreatythattheinitialandpreliminaryconclusionmustbetestedandeitherconfirmedordenied.

8Themost

obviouswayofdoingthisistoexaminethetextofthetreaty,includingitspreamble:asthe6 Yasseen,LinterprtationdestraitsdaprslaConventiondeViennesurleDroitdesTraits,

151RecueildesCours(1976III),par20,pp.39andcitedwithapprovalbytheWTOPanelonUnitedStatesSection110(5)oftheUSCopyrightAct,15June2000,pp.18,note56.ButnotethatSinclair,opcit,statesthatthisisdebatableandmightbetterberegardedaspartofthetravauxprparatoiresandthereforerelevantonlyunderArticle32.

7SuchagreementshaveparticularsignificanceinthecontextofArticle9(2)ofBerne,asseveraluncontestedstatementsweremadebytheChairmanofMainCommitteeIoftheStockholmConference(thedistinguishedGermanscholar,Prof.EugenUlmer).Suchstatements,ofcourse,needtobedistinguishedfrominterpretativeorexplanatorystatementsthatareputforwardbymembersofsuchcommitteesinthecourseofdeliberations.Suchstatements,atbest,willfalltobeconsideredaspartofthepreparatoryworksofthetreatyunderArticle32.

8I.Sinclair,TheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,MellandSchillMonographsinInternationalLaw,ManchesterUniversityPress,2ndEd.1984,pp.130.


9/86

SCCR/9/7page7

leadingBritishcommentator,Sinclairnotes,thisis,afterall,theexpressionofthepartiesintentions,anditistothatexpressionofintentthatonemustfirstlook.

9Inthecaseofthe

BerneConvention,forexample,therelevantstatementofobjectandpurposeistobefoundinthepreamblewhichstates,inthebriefestpossiblemanner,that:

ThecountriesoftheUnion,beingequallyanimatedbythedesiretoprotect,inas

effectiveanduniformamanneraspossible,therightsofauthorsintheirliteraryandartisticworksTheprotectionoftherightsofauthorsisalsoattheforefrontofArticle1whichstates:

ThecountriestowhichthisConventionappliesconstituteaUnionfortheprotectionoftherightsofauthorsintheirliteraryandartisticworks.Thisunequivocalstatementofobjectandpurposemaymakethetaskoftreaty

interpretationrelativelystraightforward.Iftheprimaryprocessofascertainingtheordinarymeaningofaparticulartreatytermleadstoaresultthatispro-author,thepreamblewillclearlyconfirmthecorrectnessofthisinterpretation.Alternatively,iftheprimaryprocessthrowsuptwopossiblemeanings,onethatfavorsauthorsandtheotherlessso,thenclearlyreferencetothepreamblewillconfirmthecorrectnessofthefirstwhiledenyingthesecond.

Thismaynotbethecasewithlatertreaties,suchasTRIPSandtheWCT,wherethepreamblescontainalistofobjectives,somecomplementaryandsomecompeting.Insuchcases,someprocessofbalancingwillberequired,andthismaymeanthatthereferencetoobjectandpurposeisamorenuancedone,thatseekstoaccommodatethesedifferingobjectives.Takingagainthecaseoftwopossibledifferentmeaningsthatarereachedintheprimarystageofinterpretation,thismaymeanthatthesecond,lesspro-author,interpretationistobepreferred,withthefirstpro-authorinterpretationbeingdenied.EveninthecaseofBerne,itispossiblethatthestraightforwardpro-authorsapproachreferredtoabovewillneedmodificationinsomerespects,whenregardishadtothetextofthattreatyasawhole.Thisisbecausethattexthasalwayscontainedprovisionsdealingwithlimitationsandexceptionsthatmakeexplicitthattherearetobesomerestrictionsonunqualifiedauthorsrightsprotection(seefurtherbelow).

Itisalsoworthsayingsomething,atthispoint,aboutArticle32whichdealswiththeuseofsupplementarymeansofinterpretation.Thiscanonlybedoneinquiterestrictedcircumstances:(a)whentheinterpretationresultingfromanapplicationofArticle31(bothprimaryandsecondarysteps)leavesthemeaningofatreatytermambiguousorobscure,or(b)whenthisleadstoaresultwhichismanifestlyabsurdorunreasonable.Thesupplementarymeansthatmaybethenemployedarenotdefinedexhaustively,buttwospecificmeansarereferredtoinArticle32:thepreparatoryworkofthetreatyandthecircumstancesofitsconclusion.NeitherofthesephrasesisdefinedintheViennaConvention,butsofaraspreparatoryworkisconcerned,thiswill:

comprisethedocumentationusuallypublishedastheActes,Documents,orRecordsofthediplomaticconferencesleadingtotheconclusionoftheConvention.Thiswouldincludetheconferenceprogramsandtheworkofanyadvisoryorexpertcommitteethatassistedinitspreparation,theproposalsandcounter-proposalsoftheSinclair,opcit,pp.131.9


10/86

SCCR/9/7page8

differentdelegations,theminutesofmeetings,thereportsofcommittees,andtheresolutionsorvotestaken.Furthermore,althoughthewordspreparatoryworkmight,onastrictreading,betakenasreferringonlytothepreparatoryworkcarriedoutinrelationtothelatesttextthatbindstheparties,itseemsreasonabletointerprettheminabroadsenseascomprehendingallpreparatoryworkdoneinrelationtotheConventionateachofitssuccessiveconferences.

10

Asnotedabove,itispossiblethat,insomeinstances,statementsmadeinthecourseofsuchpreparatoryworkmaybeelevatedtothestatusofmaterialthatispartofthecontextofthetreatyforthepurposesofascertainingtheordinarymeaningofthetextunderArticle31(2)(a).TheexamplegivenabovewasthatofanuncontestedstatementbyaConferencecommitteechair.

Theexpressioncircumstancesofthetreatysconclusionallowsforconsiderationofsuchmattersasthehistoricalbackgroundagainstwhichthetreatywasnegotiated,andtheindividualcharacteristicsandattitudesofthecontractingparties.

11Thesemattersmay,inany

event,beapparentfromthepreparatoryworkofthetreaty,butmayalsoemergefromaconsiderationofothersupplementarymeansthatarenotspecificallyreferredtoinArticle32.Withoutbeingexhaustive,

12suchothermeanswouldencompassthefollowing:therulingsof

anyrelevantinternationaltribunal;13

thestatementsoropinionsofanyrelevantadministrativeorgansofthetreatyinquestion,suchastheAssemblyorExecutiveCommitteeoftheBerneUnion;

14thestatementsoropinionsofanyofficialorsemi-officialgatheringoftreaty

members;theproceedingsofanyrelevantnon-governmentalinternationalorganizationorprofessionaland/oracademicbody;

15andthewritingsoflearnedcommentators.

16The

10Ricketson,pp.136.

11Sinclair,opcit,pp.141.

12 Foramoredetaileddiscussion,seeRicketson,pp.136-13713UndertheBerneConvention,Article30,thiswouldincludetheInternationalCourtofJustice;buttherealityisthatthistribunalhasneverbeenactivatedinthecontextofthatConvention,and,moreover,itsjurisdictionisthesubjectofreservationsbyalargenumberofBernemembers.

14ThisdoesnotappeartohavehappenedduringthehistoryoftheBerneUnion,butthereareprecedentsforthisinrelationtotheAssemblyoftheParisUnionfortheProtectionofIndustrialProperty.AnotherpotentialsourceofexpertopinionmightbefromtheInternationalOffice(WIPO)itself:onenotableexampleofthisoccurredaftertheaccessionoftheUSAtotheBerneConventionin1989,whenissuesaroseconcerningthecorrectapplicationoftheretrospectivityrequirementsofArticle18oftheConvention.Onseveraloccasions,WIPOprovidedopinionsastotheinterpretationandscopeoftheseprovisionsandtheseweremadepubliclyavailabletoalBernemembers.

15Inthisregard,theinternationalnon-governmentalorganizationwiththelongesthistoryinrelationtotheBerneConventionistheInternationalLiteraryandArtisticAssociation(Lassociationlittraireetartistiqueinternationale),whichalsocanfairlyclaimtobethebodywhichinitiatedthediplomaticconferencesthatledtotheadoptionoftheConventionin1886:seefurtherRicketson,chapter2.

16TherearenumerouscommentariesonallthetextsoftheBerneConventioninEnglish,French,German,SpanishandItalian,tomentiononlytheprincipallanguagesoftheConventiontodate.TheWTOandTRIPShave,inturn,beguntogeneratetheirownexpertcommentariesindifferentlanguages.ForthepurposesofthepresentStudy,particularreferenceismadetothefollowing:Desbois,H.Franon,A.andKereverA,Lesconventionsinternationalesdudroitdauteuretdesdroitsvoisins,Dalloz,Paris(1976)(Desboisetal);NordemannW.,VinckK,andHertinP.W.,InternationalesUrheberrechtundLeistungsschutzrechtderdeutschaprachigen

[Footnotecontinuedonnextpage]


11/86

SCCR/9/7page9

authoritytobeattachedtoeachofthesewilldiffergreatly,buteachiscapableofprovidingevidenceofthewayinwhichpartiesmayhaveapproachedtheconclusionofthetreatyinquestion.Inthepresentcontext,themostsignificantsupplementaryaidtointerpretationistobefoundintherulingsofPanelsappointedundertheWorldTradeOrganization(WTO)disputeresolutionprocedures.TheseobviouslyhavepotentiallybindingeffectwithrespecttoWTOmembersinthecontextofTRIPS,butmustalsocommandattentionwhentheyare

concernedwiththeinterpretationoftheprovisionsofintellectualpropertyconventionsthatareincorporatedintotheTRIPSAgreement,inparticulartheBerneConvention.OfmostimmediateconcernforthepresentStudyistherulingoftheWTOPanelontheUShomestyleandbusinessexemptionprovision,whichresultedfromacomplaintbytheEuropeanCommunitiesagainsttheUnitedStates.

17Inparticular,thePanelsdecisiondeals

withtheinterpretationofArticle9(2)oftheBerneConvention(thethree-steptest)whichisincorporatedintotheTRIPSAgreementbyvirtueofArticle9(1)ofthatinstrument.ItwillthereforeberelevanttomakereferencetothePanelsrulinginthepresentStudy,eventhoughthePanelsdecisionwasstrictlyconcernedonlywiththeapplicationofthethree-steptestaspartofTRIPSnotaspartofBerne.

ThereisalsoanothersenseinwhichmaterialsofthekinddescribedintheprecedingparagraphmaybeofimportanceintheprocessofinterpretationunderbothArticles31and32.InthecaseofArticle31,theymayprovideevidenceofstatepracticeinrelationtothewayinwhichparticulartermsofatreatyhavebeeninterpretedandapplied.Thus,itispossiblethattheordinarymeaningofatreatyprovisionthatwouldotherwisebearrivedatonastraightreadingofthetextcouldbemodifiedinthelightofsuchevidenceofsubsequentstatepractice.Itwouldseemthatsuchpracticewouldneedtobeunanimous,or,attheleast,unchallengedbyothermemberstates.InthecaseofArticle32,itisalsoclearthatsuchmaterialcouldperformasimilarfunctionintheprocessofestablishingwhatwerethecircumstancesoftheconclusionoftheprovisionwhichisindoubt.Anobviousinstancewherethismightoccuriswherethereisambiguity,obscurityorabsurdityintheinterpretationofaprovision,buttheproceedingsandresolutionsofrelevantnon-governmentalorganizationsmakeclearwhatwastheparticularproblemthattheprovisionwasseekingtoovercome.

[Footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage]LnderunterBercksichtigungauchderStaatenderEuropischenGemeinschaft,Kommentar,Werner,Dsseldorf(1977),alsopublishedinFrenchunderthetitleofDroitdauteurinternationaletdroitsvoisins.Commentaire(transbyJTournier),Bruylant,Brussels(1983)andinEnglishunderthetitleInternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRightsLaw,EnglishversionbyGMeyer),VCH,Weinheim,1990(Nordemannetal);MasouyC.(transW.Wallace),GuidetotheRomeConventionandtothePhonogramsConvention,WIPO,Geneva(1981)(Masouy);Ladas,SP,TheIntenationalProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticProperty(2Vol.),HarvardStudiesinInternationalLaw,Macmillan,NewYork(1938);Ficsor,TheLawofCopyrightandtheInternet,Oxford,2002(Ficsor);ReinbotheJ.,andvonLewinskiS.,TheWIPOTreaties1996,ButterworthsLexisNexis,UK,2002(ReinbotheandvonLewinski).WTOPanelonUnitedStatesSection110(5)oftheUSCopyrightAct,June15,2000.17


12/86

SCCR/9/7page10

LIMITATIONSANDEXCEPTIONSUNDERTHEBERNECONVENTIONAsnotedabove,theBerneConventionhascontainedprovisionsrelatingtolimitations

andexceptionssinceitsinception.Ofthese,theonethathasnowcometoassumealifeofitsown,particularlyasthetemplateforexceptionsinlaterconventions,isthethree-steptestinArticle9(2),althoughthiswasthelasttobeinsertedintheConvention(inthe1971Paris

revision).ThefollowingaccountdiscussestheprincipalprovisionsoftheParisActofBernethatarerelevanttolimitationsandexceptions.

(a) LimitationsonProtectionOfficialTexts

ThisisprovidedforinArticle2(4)asfollows:(4)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontodeterminetheprotectiontobegrantedtoofficialtextsofalegislative,administrativeandlegal

nature,andtoofficialtranslationsofsuchtexts.1. Thisleavesittonationallegislationtodetermine(a)whethersuchtextsaretobeprotectedatall,and(b)ifso,towhatextent.Thispermitsahighdegreeofflexibility,enablingmembercountriestogiveeffecttotheirdifferingviewsofthepublicinterestatoneextreme,theyarefreetoleavesuchtextsentirelyinthepublicdomain;attheother,theymayaccordthemcompleteprotectionasliteraryorartisticworks;ortheymaygrantqualifiedprotection,subjecttogenerousrightsofuseonthepartofthepublic.Thethirdcoursemay,infact,bethemostprudent,asagovernmentmaywishtoretaincontroloverthereproductionofitsofficialtexts(soastoguaranteetheiraccuracyandauthenticity),whilesatisfyingthepublicinterestinhavingreadyandimmediateaccesstothesedocumentsbythegrantofagenerallicensetomembersofthepublictomakeprivatecopies.

NewsoftheDayandPressInformationArticle2(8)providesthat:

TheprotectionofthisConventionshallnotapplytonewsofthedayortomiscellaneousfactshavingthecharacterofmereitemsofpressinformation.ThewordingofthisArticlemakesitdifficulttodiscernitspurpose.Isitapublicpolicy

exceptiontotheConventioninthesensethatitexcludesnewsitemsandreportsgenerallyfromthescopeoftheConvention,intheinterestsoffreedomofinformation?Alternatively,doesitembodyajuridicalconceptionofthenatureofauthorsrights,whichexcludestheseitemsfromprotectiononthebasisthattheyareincapableofconstitutingliteraryorartisticworksinsofarastheyembodyfactsandinformationthatcannotbethesubjectofprotection?Ifthelatteristhecorrectview,suchanexclusionisstrictlyunnecessaryastheseitemsshouldnot,inanyevent,becoveredbytheConventionapointwhichisnowexpresslyacknowledgedinArticle2(2)oftheWCTandArticle9(2)oftheTRIPSAgreement.Theexpressionsnewsofthedayandmiscellaneousinformation...donotinthemselvesindicatewhichviewiscorrect,butitispossibletofindsupportforthesecondviewinthesuccessiverevisionconferencesthathaveconsideredthisquestion.Mostinformativehereis


13/86

SCCR/9/7page11

thefollowingstatementthatappearsintheReportofMainCommitteeIattheStockholmConferencein1967:

...theConventiondoesnotprotectmereitemsofinformationonnewsofthedayormiscellaneousfacts,becausesuchmaterialdoesnotpossesstheattributesneededtoconstituteawork.Thatimpliesafortiorithatnewsitemsorthefactsthemselvesarenot

protected.TheArticlesofjournalistsorotherjournalisticworksreportingnewsitemsare,ontheotherhand,protectedtotheextentthattheyareliteraryorartisticworks.ItdidnotseemessentialtoclarifythetextoftheConventiononthispoint.

18

AspartofthetravauxprparatoiresfortheStockholmConference,thisparagraphembodiesanauthenticinterpretationofArticle2(8)whichcanbefollowedinnationallegislation.

PoliticalSpeeches,andSpeechesDeliveredintheCourseofLegalProceedingsThisisprovidedforinArticle2bis(1)asfollows:

(1)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontoexclude,whollyorinpart,fromtheprotectionprovidedbytheprecedingArticlepoliticalspeechesandspeechesdeliveredinthecourseoflegalproceedings.Thepublicinterestargumentsinfavorofpermittingthepartialortotalexclusionof

protectionforsuchworkshavenotbeendisputedatanytimesincetheintroductionofthisprovisioninRomein1928,butitshouldbenotedthattheprovisionisentirelypermissiveinform.Atthesametime,itplacesnorestrictionontheextenttowhichprotectionmaybedeniedtotheseworks,asitappliespotentiallytoallpossibleformsofexploitationthatarecomprehendedwithintherightsofauthorsundertheConvention,forexample,broadcasting,publicperformanceandrecitationaswellasreproduction.Ontheotherhand,thereisatemporallimitationtoArticle2bis(1)whichindicatesthatitisconcernedprincipallywiththeimmediateorcontemporarycommunicationofthesekindsofworks.Thus,underArticle2bis(3),nationallawsmustcontinuetoallowtheauthorofsuchworkstheexclusiverightofmakingacollectionofhisworksmentionedintheprecedingparagraphs.Accordingly,authorsofpoliticalandlegalspeechesretaintherightofmakingalatercompilationoftheiroratoricalpearlsofwisdom!

(b) ExceptionstoProtectionThefollowingprovisionsarerelevanthere.

LawfulRightsofQuotationThemakingofquotationsfromworkshaslongbeenrecognizedasanexceptionunder

theBerneConvention,whereitisnowcontainedinArticle10(1)asamandatoryrequirementtowhicheachUnionmembermustgiveeffectinrelationtoworksclaimingprotectionundertheConvention.

Ibid,Vol.II,1155.18


14/86

SCCR/9/7page12

Itprovidesasfollows:(1)Itshallbepermissibletomakequotationsfromaworkwhichhasalready

beenlawfullymadeavailabletothepublic,providedthattheirmakingiscompatiblewithfairpractice,andtheirextentdoesnotexceedthatjustifiedbythepurpose,includingquotationsfromnewspaperArticlesandperiodicalsintheformofpress

summaries.Thefollowingcommentsmaybemadeaboutthisprovision:

1. Themeaningofquotation:AlthoughArticle10(1)doesnotdefinequotation,thisusuallymeansthetakingofsomepartofagreaterwholeagroupofwordsfromatextoraspeech,amusicalpassageorvisualimagetakenfromapieceofmusicoraworkofartwherethetakingisdonebysomeoneotherthantheoriginatorofthework.

19Thereisnothinginthe

wordingofArticle10(1)toindicatethatthisexceptionisonlyconcernedwithreproductionrights:quotationsmaybemadejustaseasilyinthecourseofalecture,performanceorbroadcast,asinamaterialformsuchasabook,Articleorvisualworkofart.2. Lengthofquotation:NolimitationisplacedontheamountthatmaybequotedunderArticle10(1),althoughassuggestedabovequotationmaysuggestthatthethingquotedisapartofagreaterwhole.Quantitativerestrictions,however,arenotoriouslydifficulttoformulateandapply,andArticle10(1)leavesthisasamattertobedeterminedineachcase,subjecttothegeneralcriteriaofpurposeandfairpractice.

20Thus,insomeinstancesitmaybe

bothconsistentwiththepurposeforwhichthequotationismadeandcompatiblewithfairpracticetomakelengthyquotationsfromawork,inordertoensurethatitispresentedcorrectly,asinthecaseofacriticalrevieworworkofscholarship.Itisalsopossibletoenvisageothercircumstanceswherequotationofthewholeofaworkmaybejustified,asintheexamplegivenbyonecommentaryofaworkonthehistoryoftwentieth-centuryartwhererepresentativepicturesofparticularschoolsofartwouldbeneededbywayofillustration.

21Anothermightbecartoonsorshortpoemswherethesearequotedaspartofawiderworkofcommentaryorreview.3. Theworkinquestionmusthavebeenlawfullymadeavailabletothepublic:ThisiswiderthantheconceptofapublishedworkunderArticle3(3)wheresuchactsasbroadcastingandpublicperformanceareexcludedfromthescopeofpublicationanditisalsorequiredthattheworkbepublishedwiththeconsentoftheauthor.TherequirementoflawfulavailabilityunderArticle10(1)issignificantlydifferentinthatitincludesthemakingavailableofworksbyanymeans,notsimplythroughthemakingavailableofcopiesofthework.Thus,ifadramaticormusicalworkisperformedinpublicorbroadcast,Article10(1)shouldpermitthemakingofquotationsfromitbyacriticorreviewerwhotakesdownpassagesverbatimforuseinhisorherreview.LawfulavailabilityunderArticle10(1)alsocoversthesituationwherethishasoccurredunderacompulsorylicense,althoughinthecaseofsoundrecordingsthecompulsorylicenseallowedforunderArticle13(1)onlycomesintooperationwhentheauthorhasfirstauthorizedtherecording,

19SeeherethefirstmeaninggiveninthedefinitionintheConciseOxfordDictionary,10

thEd.2001,pp.1176.

20Ibid,1147(Report).21 Nordemannetal,83.


15/86

SCCR/9/7page13

andpresumablythemakingavailable,ofhisorhermusicalwork.22

Finally,itwillbeseenthatArticle10(1)containsnolimitationonthekindsofworkthatmaybequoted.4. Compatiblewithfairpractice:FairpracticeispossiblyaconceptthatismorefamiliartoAnglo-AmericanlawyersthantheircontinentalEuropeancounterparts,

23andwill

essentiallybeamatterfornationaltribunalstodetermineineachparticularinstance.

However,thecriteriareferredtoinArticle9(2)(seebelow)wouldappeartobeequallyapplicablehereindeterminingwhetheraparticularquotationisfair,namelywhetheritconflictswithanormalexploitationoftheworkandunreasonablyprejudicesthelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor.

24ThereisnomentioninArticle10(1)ofthepossibilityofusestaking

placepursuanttoacompulsorylicense,butinprinciplewhereausebywayofquotationisremuneratedanddoesnotexceedthatjustifiedbythepurpose(seebelow),thisshouldmorereadilysatisfytherequirementofcompatibilitywithfairpracticethanwouldafreeuse.5. Theextentofthequotationmustnotexceedthatjustifiedbythepurpose:InitsReporttotheStockholmConference,MainCommitteeInotedthatanylistofspecifiedpurposescouldnothopetobeexhaustive.

25

Nevertheless,itisclearfromthepreparatoryworkfortheConferenceandthediscussionsinMainCommitteeIthatquotationsforscientific,critical,informatoryoreducationalpurposeswerecertainlyseenascomingwithinthescopeofArticle10(1).

26Otherexamplesarequotationsinhistoricalandother

scholarlywritingmadebywayofillustrationorevidenceforaparticularvieworargument.Again,inthe1965CommitteeofExpertsreportfortheStockholmConferencereferencewasmadetoquotationsforjudicial,politicalandentertainmentpurposes.

27Afurtherinstancethat

wasgiveninboththeprogramme28

andthediscussionsinMainCommitteeIwasquotationforartisticeffect.

29Itispossible,therefore,thatArticle10(1)couldcovermuchofthe

groundthatiscoveredbyfairuseprovisionsinsuchnationallawsasthatoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA).

30

6. QuotationsfromnewspaperArticlesandpresssummaries:Inonerespect,however,Article10(1)referstoaspecifickindofquotation,namelyquotationsfromnewspaperArticlesandperiodicalsintheformofpresssummaries.ThispreservessomeofthewordingofArticle10(1)oftheBrusselsAct,butnotwithoutachangeinitsmeaning.Thelatterprovision,infact,referredgenerallytothemakingofshortquotations,andthenprovidedthatthisextendedtotherighttoincludesuchquotationsinpresssummaries.Thepresentwordingdoesnothavethismeaningandmakeslittlesense:whileasummaryofanewspaperorperiodicalArticlemayincludeaquotationfromthatArticle(asenvisagedbytheBrusselstext),themakingofthesummaryisnotthesamethingasthemakingofaquotation.ItisdifficultthereforetoknowwhatthepresentArticle10(1)meanswhenitreferstoaquotation22

NotethatDesboisetaltaketheviewthatasimilarlimitationappliesinrespectofcompulsorylicensesunderart13(2):Documents1948,188.Thisviewisconsideredbelowatparagraph9.45.

23Nordemann,83.

24SeealsoNordemannetal,8384.

25Records1967,860861.

26 Ibid,116117(DocS/1),860861(minutes).27

Ibid,117.28 Ibid.29

Ibid,861(commentsbySwedishdelegate,Mr.Hesser).30 USCopyrightAct1976,Section107.


16/86

SCCR/9/7page14

intheformofasummary.Thisisacontradictioninterms,andplaysnousefulpurposeinexemplifyingtheoperationoftheprovision.

31

7. Mandatorynotpermissive:Finally,asnotedabove,thisisamandatoryexceptionthatmustbeappliedbymembercountriesintheirnationallaws.Inthisregard,itisuniqueamongBerne

limitationsandexceptions,asalltheotherscontainedintheConventionarepermissive,

inthesensethattheysetthelimitswithinwhichnationallawsmayprovideforlimitationsandexceptionstoprotection.

UtilizationforTeachingPurposesTherelevantprovisionisArticle10(2),whichprovidesasfollows:

(2)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUnion,andforspecialagreementsexistingortobeconcludedbetweenthem,topermittheutilization,totheextentjustifiedbythepurpose,ofliteraryorartisticworksbywayofillustrationinpublications,broadcastsorsoundorvisualrecordingsforteaching,providedthatsuchutilizationiscompatiblewithfairpractice.Thefollowingpointsabouttheinterpretationofthisprovisionshouldbenoted:

1. Whatistheutilization[ofworks]forteachingisamattertobedeterminedbynationallegislation,orbybilateralagreementsbetweenUnionmembers(seealsoArticle20).AllthatArticle10(2)does,therefore,istosettheouterlimitswithinwhichsuchregulationmaybecarriedout.2. UnlikeearlierversionsofthisArticle,noquantitativelimitationsarecontainedinArticle10(1),apartfromthegeneralqualificationthattheutilizationofworksshouldonlybetotheextentjustifiedbythepurpose,...bywayofillustration...forteaching,providedthatsuchutilizationiscompatiblewithfairpractice.ThesereferencestopurposeandfairpracticearesimilartothoseinArticle10(1),andmaketheprovisionmoreopen-ended,implyingnonecessaryquantitativelimitations.Thewordsbywayofillustrationimposesomelimitation,butwouldnotexcludetheuseofthewholeofaworkinappropriatecircumstances,forexample,inthecaseofanartisticworkorshortliterarywork.

32

3. Theutilizationmustbebywayofillustrationforthepurposeofteaching.ThemeaningofthelatterexpressionreceivedconsiderableattentionfromthedelegatesattheStockholmConference,andthefollowingexplanationoftheirviewswasprovidedintheCommitteesReport:31

SeeheretheexplanationintheReportofMainCommitteeI,whichhardlytakesmattersmuchfurther:Itwasalsopointedoutthatthelastphrase,referringtopresssummaries,gaverisetosomeambiguities.Itwasfelt,however,thatitwouldbedifficulttogetridofthatambiguitywhichthecourtswouldbeabletodecideupon,butthatitwasnotabsolutelyessentialtodoso.

Records1967,1147.32

NofurtherguidanceonthesemattersistobefoundintheReportofMainCommitteeI,althoughthereportsoftheCommitteesproceedingsindicatethatatleastonedelegate(thatoftheUK)explicitlystatedthatthiswordingwouldpermittheuseofthewholeofaworkandthathealsothoughtthiswastheviewofotherdelegates.


17/86

SCCR/9/7page15

ThewishwasexpressedthatitshouldbemadeclearinthisReportthatthewordteachingwastoincludeteachingatalllevelsineducationalinstitutionsanduniversities,municipalandStateschools,andprivateschools.Educationoutsidetheseinstitutions,forinstancegeneralteachingavailabletothegeneralpublicbutnotincludedintheabovecategories,shouldbeexcluded.

33

Thisisarestrictiveinterpretation,34

asitclearlyexcludestheutilizationofworksinadulteducationcourses,and,indevelopingcountries,wouldalsoexcludeadultliteracycampaigns,althoughthelatterusemaybecoveredbytheprovisionsoftheAppendixtotheParisAct(seebelow).4. Isteachingconfinedtoactualclassroominstruction,ordoesitalsoextendtocorrespondenceoronlinecourseswherestudentsreceivenoface-to-faceinstructionfromateacher.Thelatterareofimportanceinmanycountries,anditissuggestedthatthereisnoreasontoexcludethemfromthescopeofteachingforthepurposesofArticle10(2).5. TherequirementthattheutilizationbecompatiblewithfairpracticeisthesameasforlawfulquotationsunderArticle10(1).Thisinvolvesanobjectiveappreciationofthesituation,and,assuggestedabove,thecriteriareferredtoinArticle9(2)wouldprovideausefulguide(seefurtherbelow).6. TherangeofutilizationspermittedbyArticle10(2)includesnotonlypublications(presumablythismeansreproductions),butalsobroadcastsandsoundorvisualrecordings.Inthecaseofbroadcasting,thismayallowfordisseminationtoawideraudiencethatthoseforwhomtheinstructionisintended.7. OneformofutilizationwhichisnotreferredtoinArticle10(2)isthedistributionofaworkeitheraspartofanoriginalprogrammeoraspartofabroadcastoveracablesystem.Thisisincludedinotherprovisionsdealingwithexceptionstoauthorsrights(Article10bis(1)and(2)),soitsomissionfromArticle10(2)mustberegardedasdeliberate.8. Article10(2)doesnotcontainanyrestrictiononthenumberofcopiesthatmaybemadeinthecaseofpublicationsandsoundorvisualrecordingsthataremadeforteachingpurposes.Justasnolimitationisimposedinrespectofthepublicwhichisreachedbyabroadcastintendedforteachingpurposes,sotherecanbenolimitationonthenumberofcopiesthatcanbemadeforthesamepurpose.Theonlyfurtherqualificationappliedhereisthatthemakingofmultiplecopiesmustbecompatiblewithfairpractice.Obviously,ifthiscompeteswiththeauthorsnormalexploitationofhisworkandunreasonablyprejudiceshislegitimateinterests,Article10(2)shouldnotapply.Inthisregard,theamountcopiedwillalsobeahighlyrelevantfactor,particularlywherelargenumbersofcopiesaremadeforindividualclassroomusebystudents.Remunerationforsuchusesunderacompulsorylicensemaythereforemaketheusemorecompatiblewithfairpractice.

33 Records1967,1148.34

NotethatinMainCommitteeIsomedelegatesthoughtthatthiswastoolimiting: ibid,886(Mr.Reimer,FRG).


18/86

SCCR/9/7page16

QuotationandTeachingUses:AttributionofSourceandAuthorshipBothArticles10(1)and(2)aresubjecttoafurtherrequirementinArticle10(3)tothe

effectthat,whereuseismadeofworksinaccordancewiththoseparagraphs,mentionshallbemadeofthesource,andofthenameoftheauthorifitappearsthereon.

Thisisamandatoryrequirement,andwhileitmayseemsuperfluousinthelightofArticle6bis,itwasthoughtappropriatethatitshouldbeaddedtoArticle10inordertoremoveanydoubtthattherightofattributionwastoberespectedinthecaseofquotationsandutilizationsmadeunderthatprovision.

35Thismayraiseaproblemasregardstherightof

respectorintegrity:istheapplicationofthisrequirementunderArticle6bistherebyexcludedfromtheprovisionsofArticle10?AstatementintheReportofMainCommitteeIoftheStockholmConferencenotesthatdelegatesweregenerallyagreedthatArticle6bisappliedinrespectofexceptionsauthorizedbytheConvention,includingArticle10.

36However,there

arepracticalreasonsforarguingthatArticle6bisshouldnotapplytotheprovisionsofArticle10.Modificationsandalterationstoaworkareoftennecessarywhereitisquotedorutilizedforteachingpurposes,andtheneedforsuchflexibilityissupportedbytherecordsoftheRomeConference,whereproposedamendmentstomakeborrowingsundertheArticleconformentirelytotheoriginaltextwererejected.37ThequestionofmodificationsandotherchangeshasnotbeenraisedatsubsequentRevisionConferencesinthecontextofArticle10and,fromthis,itcanbeconcludedthat,unliketherightofattribution,therehasbeennoagreementabouttheneedtorespecttherightofintegrityunderArticle10.Intheabsenceofsuchagreement,theapplicationofArticle6bistolawfulquotationsandborrowingscannotthereforebeassumed.

Inaddition,Article10(3)mayfillagapwhichisleftopenbyArticle6bis.UndertheBrusselsAct,thisprovisiondidnotrequiretheprotectionoftherightofattributionafterthedeathoftheauthor,anditisstillpossibleunderArticle6bis(2)oftheStockholm,ParisActsforaUnionmembertodenysuchprotection.Insuchacase,Article10(3)makesitclearthatsuchacountrymuststillaccordthisprotectioninthecaseofquotationsandutilizationsfallingunderArticle10.

Finally,itshouldbenotedthatArticle10(3)isnotconfinedsolelytoattributionofauthorshipanobligationthatonlyariseswheretheauthorsnameappearsontheworkbutitrequiresattributionofsourcepresumablythepublicationdetailsofthework,includingthenameofanylargerworkinwhichtheworkappears.

35Documents1948,245(commentsintheprogramme).SeealsopreliminaryproposalsforthepostponedConferenceof1935:[1933]DA99.

36Records1967,1165.37 Actes1928,252ff.SeefurtherRicketson,paragraph9.28.


19/86

SCCR/9/7page17

ExceptionsMadefortheBenefitofthePressFromitsinception,theConventionhascontainedprovisionsinfavorofthepress:see

thelimitationsunderArticle2(8)fornewsofthedayandmiscellaneousfactsdiscussedabove.Theotherprovisionsconcernedwithpressusagefallintotwobroadcategories:theuseofArticlesinnewspapersandperiodicals(Article10bis(1))andtheuseofworksforthe

purposesofreportingandinformingthepublic(Articles2bis(2)and10bis(2)).

TheUseofArticlesinNewspapersandPeriodicalsThisisdealtwithinArticle10bis(1)asfollows:

(1)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontopermitthereproductionbythepress,thebroadcastingorthecommunicationtothepublicbywireofArticlespublishedinnewspapersorperiodicalsoncurrenteconomic,politicalorreligioustopics,andofbroadcastworksofthesamecharacter,incasesinwhichthereproduction,broadcastingorsuchcommunicationthereofisnotexpresslyreserved.Nevertheless,thesourcemustalwaysbeclearlyindicated;thelegalconsequencesofabreachofthisobligationshallbedeterminedbythelegislationofthecountrywhereprotectionisclaimed.Althoughpreviouslyamandatoryexception,thisisnowleftasamatterfornational

legislation.Thefollowingcommentscanbemadeaboutitsscope.1. Theactswhichmaybeallowedextendtoreproduction,broadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicbywire.2. NotonlydoesitapplytoArticlespublishedinnewspapersandperiodicals,butalsotobroadcastworksofthesamenature(butnottoworksofthesamenaturethathavebeencommunicatedtothepublicbywire).Italsoappearsthatentireworkscanbetaken.Ontheotherhand,thequalificationthattheseshouldbeArticlesorbroadcastworksoncurrenteconomic,politicalorreligioustopicsexcludesawiderangeofnewspaperandperiodicalwriting,suchasliteraryandartisticreviews,sportsreports,articlesonscientificandtechnicalmattersandsoon.ThewordcurrentalsoindicatesthattheArticlesinquestionmustbeofimmediaterelevance,asthepurposebehindtheexceptionistoexpeditethefreeflowofinformationoncurrentevents.

38LongerArticleswhichreviewthesetopicsinalonger-term

frameworkwouldnotthereforebeincluded.3. TheprovisiondoesnotrefertothereproductionandbroadcastingofArticlesintranslation.

39ItwasnotthoughtnecessarytodothisattheStockholmConference,onthe

basisthattherightoftranslationunderArticle8oftheConventionwasimplicitlysubjecttothesameexceptionsasthoseofreproductionandbroadcasting:

40Seefurtherbelow.

38Note,forexample,thestatementoftheCzechdelegatewhichimpliesthathesawthisasbeingconcernedprincipallywithstatementsbypublicfigures:ibid,859.

39DocS/51:ibid,688.40 Ibid,1149(ReportofMainCommitteeI).


20/86

SCCR/9/7page18

4. AswithArticle10(2),whereaworkcoveredbythisprovisionisbroadcastorcommunicatedtothepublicbywire,thismustalsocoveranyfurtherdisseminationthatoccursthroughthereceptionofthebroadcastorwireservice,forexample,whereitisplayedinpublic.

41Inthecaseofreproductions,therecanclearlybenolimitationonthenumberof

copiesmade.5. NationallawsmayimposemorerigorouslimitationsthanthosesetbyArticle10bis(1),ormayrefusetoallowanyderogationswhatsoeverinthesecases.TheonlyconditiontobecompliedwithundertheArticleisthatthesourceoftheArticlemustbeindicated(seefurtherbelow).ThereisalsonoreasonwhyacountryinvokingArticle10bis(1)shouldnotmakesuchusessubjecttothepaymentofacompulsorylicensefee:this,afterall,wouldbealesserderogationthanthatwhichtheprovisionallows.

42

6. AnyexceptionformulatedundernationallawspursuanttothisprovisionmustrequirethatthesourceoftheArticlebeindicated.Thisisapartialrecognitionoftheauthorsrightofattribution,butisdifferentlywordedfromtherequirementinArticle10(3).Underthelatter,compliancewiththisrequirementisnecessaryifthequotationorutilizationinquestionistobelawful.UnderArticle10bis(1),however,thelegalconsequencesofthebreachofthisobligationarelefttobedeterminedbythelegislationofthecountrywhereprotectionisclaimed.Thus,itwouldbeopentonationallegislationtodecreethatabreachinvolvessomelesserpenalty,suchasliabilitytoasumofdamagesorafine,anddoesnotmaketheuseitselfunlawful.

UseofWorksintheReportingofCurrentEventsIncidentalusesofworksinthereportingofcurrenteventsbymeansofphotography,

cinematographyandradioaredealtwithinArticle10bis(2),whichprovidesasfollows:(2)ItshallalsobeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUnionto

determinetheconditionsunderwhich,forthepurposeofreportingcurrenteventsbymeansofphotography,cinematography,broadcastingorcommunicationtothepublicbywire,literaryorartisticworksseenorheardinthecourseoftheeventmay,totheextentjustifiedbytheinformatorypurpose,bereproducedandmadeavailabletothepublic.Thefollowingcommentscanbemadeaboutthisprovision.

1. Thisisnotamandatoryrequirement,butissimplyleftasamatterfornationallegislation.InprovidingfortheusesdetailedinArticle10bis(2),aUnionmembercouldmakeoneoftheconditionsforthistooccurthepaymentofremunerationunderacompulsorylicense.

43ItwouldalsobeopentoaUnionmembernottoprovideforanyoftheseuses.

41Seealsotothesameeffect,Masouy,61.

42Seealsotothesameeffect,Desboisetal,198199.43 SeealsoDesboisetal,201.


21/86

SCCR/9/7page19

2. Themeansofreportingthatarecoveredbytheprovisionarephotography,cinematography,broadcastingandcommunicationtothepublicbywire.However,itwillbenotedthat,apartfromphotographsandcinematographicfilms,reproductiongenerallyofworksinthecourseofreportingcurrenteventsisnotallowed.SuchuseswillthereforehavetobejustifiedundertherightofquotationinArticle10(1)orasbeingwithinthegeneralexceptionunderArticle9(2).Anexamplewouldbeasoundrecordingofacurrenteventthat

ismadeforsubsequentbroadcast:insofarasthiscontainsareproductionofaprotectedwork,thiswillnotbecoveredbyArticle10bis(2).3. Thesubjectofthereportmustbeacurrentevent,andtheworkinquestionmustbeseenorheardinthecourseoftheevent.Thisplacesanimportanttemporallimitationontheprovision,meaningthatitwouldnotbepermissibleafterthereporthasbeenmadetoembellishitbytheadditionofapictureofaworkofartoramusicalaccompaniment,asneitherofthesewouldhavebeenseenorheardinthecourseoftheevent.4. Theuseoftheworkmustbejustifiedbytheinformatorypurpose.Itwillbeclearthatthisdoesnotallowcarteblancheforthereproductionofwholeworksundertheguiseofreportingcurrentevents:thiswillonlybepermittedwherethenatureoftheworkissuchthatitwouldnotbepossibletomakethereportwithoutdoingso.

44

ReportingofLectures,AddressesandOtherSimilarWorksArticle2bis(2)alsopermitsmemberstatestoregulatetheconditionsunderwhichthese

kindsoforallydeliveredworksmaybeusedforthepurposesofreporting,providingthat:ItshallalsobeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontodetermine

theconditionsunderwhichlectures,addressesandotherworksofthesamenaturewhicharedeliveredinpublicmaybereproducedbythepress,broadcast,communicatedtothepublicbywireandmadethesubjectofpubliccommunicationasenvisagedinArticle11bis(1)ofthisConvention,whensuchuseisjustifiedbytheinformatorypurpose.

45

Thiswillnotinclude,forexample,lectures,addresses,etc,thataredeliveredtoprivategroups,norwillitcoversermons,unlesstheyarecoveredbythecompendioustermotherworksofthesamenature.Thepublicinterestrationaleoftheprovisionisalsomadeexplicit,withtheoverridingrequirementthattheusesitallowsaretobejustifiedbytheinformatorypurpose.Thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheworksreproduced,broadcast,etc,mustthemselvesbenews,solongasthereproduction,broadcast,etc,ismadewiththepurposeofinformingthepublic.Inthisregard,itcontrastswithArticle10bis(2)whichislimitedtoreportingcurrentevents.

44Exampleswouldincludeareportonthededicationofanewpublicsculptureorbuilding,andareportonasportingeventwherethestadiumiscoveredwithvariousworksofart:Ibid,119.45 Stockholm,ParisActs,art2bis(2).


22/86

SCCR/9/7page20

ThefollowingfurtherpointsofcomparisonwithArticle10bis(2)shouldbenoted:1. AstheconditionsunderwhichtheusescoveredbyArticle2bis(2)mayoccurarelefttonationallegislation,itislikewiseopentoUnionmemberstomakethemsubjecttocompulsorylicensesandthepaymentofremuneration.2. UnlikeArticle10bis(2),Article2bis(2)doesnotcoverthemakingofacinematographicfilmoftheworkscoveredbytheprovision.

GeneralExceptionConcerningReproductionRightstheThree-StepTestPriortotheStockholmandParisActs,theConventioncontainednogeneralprovision

requiringtherecognitionofreproductionrights.AlthoughithasbeenarguedthattherewasanimplicitrequirementunderearlierActstoprovidesuchprotection,thebetterviewisthatnosuchobligationexisted.

46Accordingly,Unionmemberswerefreetoimposewhatever

restrictionstheywishedonreproductionrights,oreventodenyprotectionaltogether.Inpractice,reproductionrightswereuniversallyrecognizedundernationallegislation,buttheexceptionstotheserightsvariedconsiderablyfromcountrytocountry.TheonlyareasinwhichtheConventiontoucheduponthesematterswereinrelationtothemakingofquotations,newsreportinganduseforteachingpurposes(seeabove),insofarastheseprovisionsallowedforthemakingofsuchexceptionswherereproductionrightswereconcerned.Thesedifferencesmeantthat,intheeventthattheConventionweretoembodyageneralrightofreproduction,carewouldberequiredtoensurethatthisprovisiondidnotencroachuponexceptionsthatwerealreadycontainedinnationallaws.

47Ontheotherhand,

itwouldalsobenecessarytoensurethatitdidnotallowforthemakingofwiderexceptionsthatmighthavetheeffectofunderminingthenewlyrecognizedrightofreproduction.

ThesemattersoccupiedaconsiderableamountoftimeinthepreparatoryworkfortheStockholmRevisionConference,inparticularwhetheranyproposedexceptionshouldlistthespecifiedpurposesthatwerepermissibleorwhetheritmightbepossibletoformulateamoregeneralformulathatcoveredbothexistingandpossiblefutureexceptions.Ultimately,theStockholmConferenceoptedforthegeneralformulaapproach,whichisnowembodiedinArticle9(2)oftheParisAct.Commonlyreferredtoasthethree-steptest,thishasnowcometoenjoysomethingofthestatusofholywrit,providingasfollows:46

SeeRicketson,paragraph8.12.ButnotethatthecontraryviewputbytheBureauoftheBerneUnion(thepredecessorofBIRPI)intheprogramfortheBrusselsRevisionConferenceof1948(DocumentsdelaConferencerunieBruxellesdu5au26juin1946,pp.58);seefurtherNordemanneetal,Englishedition,pp.107,andFicsor,pp.86ff.

47TheStudyGroupnotedinitsworkforthe1967programthattheexceptionsmostfrequentlyrecognizedindomesticlawsrelatedtothefollowingmethodsofuse:(1)publicspeeches,(2)quotations,(3)schoolbooksandchrestomathies,(4)newspaperArticles,(5)reportingofcurrentevents,(6)ephemeralrecording,(7)privateuse,(8)reproductionbyphotocopyinginlibraries,(9)reproductioninspecialcharactersforusebytheblind,(10)soundrecordingofworksfortheblind,(11)textsofsongs,(12)sculpturesonpermanentdisplayinpublicplaces,(13)useofartisticworksinfilmandtelevisionasbackground,and(14)reproductionininterestsofpublicsafety.Tothislistmightbeaddedreproductionsforjudicialandadministrativepurposes,forexample,inthecourseofcourtproceedings:Records1967,Vol.I,112(DocS/1).


23/86

SCCR/9/7page21

(2)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontopermitthereproductionofsuchworksincertainspecialcases,providedthatsuchreproductiondoesnotconflictwithanormalexploitationoftheworkanddoesnotunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor.Article9(2)makesnoreferencetopreviousprovisionssuchasArticles10,10bis

and2bis(2)(aswellasArticle13whichisdiscussedbelow)thatweremodifiedandmaintainedatthesametimeintheStockholm/ParisAct.Nonetheless,itseemsclearthattheoperationoftheseprovisionswithintheirspecificsphereisunaffectedbythemoregeneralprovisioninArticle9(2),andthattheusesallowedunderthemarethereforeexcludedfromits

48scope.

Article9(2)stipulatesthreedistinctconditionsthatmustbecompliedwithbeforeanexceptiontothereproductionrightcanbejustifiedundernationallaw.Theseareconsideredinturnbelow,withappropriatereferencesbeingmadetotheviewsoftheWTOPanelwhichrecentlyconsideredtheseconditionsinthecontextoftheTRIPSAgreementdealingwiththehomestyleandbusinessexemptionsforpublicperformancesofmusicalworksundertheUSCopyrightAct1976(seefurtherbelow).

CertainSpecialCasesTheadjectivescertainandspecialsuggestthattheremustbelimitstoanyexception

tothereproductionrightthatismadeunderArticle9(2).Thus,afterconsultingvariousdictionarydefinitionsofcertain(knownandparticularized,butnotexplicitlyidentified,determined,fixed,notvariable;definitive,precise,exact.),

49theWTOPanelstatedthatthis

meantthat:anexceptionorlimitationinnationallawmustbeclearlydefined.However,

thereisnoneedtoidentifyexplicitlyeachandeverypossiblesituationtowhichtheexceptioncouldapply,providedthatthescopeoftheexceptionisknownandparticularized.Thisguaranteesasufficientdegreeoflegalcertainty.

50

Astothemeaningofspecial(havinganindividualorlimitedapplicationorpurpose,containingdetails;precise,specific.)theWTOPanelnotedthatthismeansthatmoreisneeded

thanacleardefinitioninordertomeetthestandardofthefirstcondition.Inaddition,anexceptionorlimitationmustbelimitedinitsfieldofapplicationor

48SeethecommentsbytheMongasquedelegateatibid,885,andthegeneralcommentsoninterpretationintheReportofMainCommitteeI,paragraph14:TheDraftingCommitteewasunanimousinadoptingthedraftingofnewtextsaswellasintherevisionofthewordingofcertainprovisions,theprinciplelexspecialislegigeneraliderogat:specialtextsareapplicable,intheirrestricteddomain,exclusiveoftextsthatareuniversalinscope.Forinstance,itwasconsideredsuperfluoustoinsertinArticle9,dealingwithsomegeneralexceptionsaffectingauthorsrights,expressreferencestoArticles10,10bis,11bisand13establishingspecialexceptions.

49NewSOED,pp.364.50 WTOPanel,pp.33.


24/86

SCCR/9/7page22

exceptionalinitsscope.Inotherwords,anexceptionorlimitationshouldbenarrowinquantitativeaswellasinaqualitativesense.Thissuggestsanarrowscopeaswellasanexceptionalordistinctiveobjective.Toputthisaspectofthefirstconditionintothecontextofthesecondcondition(noconflictwithanormalexploitation),anexceptionorlimitationshouldbetheoppositeofanon-special,i.e.,anormalcase.

51

Accordingly,thesetwoadjectivesrequirethataproposedexception(case)shouldbebothclearlydefinedandnarrowinitsscopeandreach.ThisinterpretationalsoseemsconsistentwiththecontextandobjectandpurposeoftheConvention,i.e.,asatreatytoconstituteaUnionfortheprotectionoftherightsofauthorsintheirliteraryandartisticworks.Inanygivencase,thiswillinvolveaconsiderationofallaspectsofaproposedexception,includingsuchmattersastheright(s)andworkscovered,thepersonswhomaytakeadvantageofit,andthepurposeoftheexception.

Doesthephrasecertainspecialcasesalsorequirethatthereshouldbesomespecialpurposeorjustificationunderlyingtheexceptionsthataremadeinanationallaw?Thishasbeensuggestedbyseveralcommentators,includingmyself,

52

butisamatteronwhichothercommentatorsaresilent.53Furthermore,althoughtheWTOPanelonthehomestyleexceptionusedtheadjectivesexceptionalanddistinctiveinthiscontext(seethepassagequotedabove),itnonethelesstooksomepainstoindicatethatitwasnottherebyequatingthetermcertainspecialcaseswithspecialpurpose.WhilethePanelwasdealingherewithadifferentinternationalagreement,namelyTRIPS,thelanguageofArticle13isthesameasArticle9(2)andanumberofcommentatorshavearguedthatthefirststepshouldreceivethesameinterpretationunderbothinstruments.Thus,ProfessorGinsburg

54hasarguedcogentlythatthephrasecertainspecialcases

shouldnotreceiveanormativeinterpretation,notingthatthepurposebehindanygivenexceptionwillfalltobetestedbythesecondandthirdstepsofthetestinanyevent,i.e.,whetheritconflictswiththenormalexploitationoftheworkandwhetheritisunreasonablyprejudicialtothelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor.ThereisalsosomesupportforthisapproachonthedraftinghistoryofArticle9(2),anditisthereforesubmittedthatthepreferableviewisthatthephrasecertainspecialcasesshouldnotbeinterpretedasrequiringthatthereshouldalsobesomespecialpurposeunderlyingit.51

WTOPanel,pp.33.52

Ricketson,pp.482NotonlydoIarguethattheuseinquestionshouldbeforaquitespecificpurpose,butthattheremustalsobesomethingspecialaboutthispurpose,specialheremeaningthatitisjustifiedbysomeclearreasonofpublicpolicyorsomeotherexceptionalcircumstance.NoteFicsor,pp.284,takesasimilarview;tosimilareffect,seeReinbotheandvonLewinski,pp.124-125.

53Note,however,thatthisisnotamatterthatisconsideredbyotherleadingcommentators.Forexample,theWIPOGuidetotheBerneConvention,1978,pp.55-56,doesnotcommentonthemeaningofthephrasecertainspecialcases;neitherdotheleadingGermancommentators,Nordemann,Vinck,HertinandMeyer,InternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRightsLaw,VCH,EnglishEd.1990,pp.108-109,ortheleadingFrenchcommentators,Desbois,FranconandKerever,LesConventionsinternationalesdedroitdauteuretdesdroitsvoisins,Dalloz,1976,paragraphs172-173.

54J.Ginsburg,TowardsSupranationalCopyrightLaw?TheWTOPanel;DecisionandtheThree-StepTestforCopyrightExceptions[2001]Revueinternationaledudroitdauteur,January2001.
http:///reader/full/exception%1Awill%1Afall%1Ato%1Abe%1Atested%1Aby%1Athe%1Asecond%1Aand%1Athird%1Asteps%1Aof%1Athe%1Atest%1Ain%1Aany%1Aevent,%1Ai.e.,http:///reader/full/exception%1Awill%1Afall%1Ato%1Abe%1Atested%1Aby%1Athe%1Asecond%1Aand%1Athird%1Asteps%1Aof%1Athe%1Atest%1Ain%1Aany%1Aevent,%1Ai.e.,


25/86

SCCR/9/7page23

ConflictwiththeNormalExploitationoftheWorkDictionarymeaningsagainprovideastartingpointherefortheordinarymeaningsof

thewordsnormalandexploitation.Thesecondoftheseisperhapsthemoststraightforward:exploitandexploitationrefertomakinguseoforutilizingforones

ownends,

55and,inthecontextofworks,canbetakenasreferringtotheactivitybywhich

copyrightownersemploytheexclusiverightsgiventothem,includingthereproductionright,toextracteconomicvaluefromtheirrightstothoseworks.

56Asfornormal,thismeans

constitutingorconformingtoatypeorstandard;regular,usual,typical,conventional57

IntheviewoftheWTOPanel,thesedefinitionsgaverisetotwopossibleconnotationsofthephrasenormalexploitation:thefirstofanempiricalnature,i.e.,whatisregular,usual,typicalorordinaryinafactualsense,andthesecondreflectingasomewhatmorenormative,ifnotdynamic,approach,i.e.,conformingtoatypeorstandard.

Undertheempiricalapproach,thequestiontoaskwouldbewhethertheexemptedusewouldotherwisefallwithintherangeofactivitiesfromwhichthecopyrightownerwouldusuallyexpecttoreceivecompensation.Framingthequestioninthisway,however,involvesanobviouscircularity,asProfessorGoldsteinhasnoted:Atleasthistorically,anauthorwillnormallyexploitaworkonlyinthosemarketswhereheisassuredoflegalrights;bydefinition,marketsforexemptedusesfalloutsidetherangeofnormalexploitation.Consequently,itmightbethoughtthattoexpandanexemptionistoshrinkthenormalmarket,whiletoexpandthedefinitionofnormalmarketistoshrinkthepermittedexception.

58Apreferablewayofapproachingthisquestionmightthereforebetopostulate

thattheownerhasthecapacitytoexercisehisorherrightsinfull,withoutbeinginhibitedonewayoranotherbythepresenceofanexemption,andasksimplywhethertheparticularusageissomethingthatthecopyrightownerwouldordinarilyor,perhaps,reasonablyseektoexploit.Thiswouldinvolvelookingatwhatpresentlyisthecase,andwoulddisregardpotentialmodesofexploitationthatmightariseinthefuture.Thenormativeordynamicapproach,ontheotherhand,wouldlookbeyondthispurelyquantitativeassessmentandwouldseektotakeintoaccounttechnologicalandmarketdevelopmentsthatmightoccur,althoughthesemightnotpresentlybeincontemplation.Itisalsoconceivablethatusesthatarepresentlynotcontrolledbycopyrightownersmightsubsequentlybecomeso,astheresultoftechnologicalchangeanexamplemightbeprivatecopyingwherethetransactioncostsinvolvedinmonitoringsuchusesmightnowbereducedbecauseofthenewtechnologies.Onthismorequalitativeordynamicapproach,normalexploitationwillthereforerequireconsiderationofpotential,aswellascurrentandactual,usesormodesofextractingvaluefromawork.

Differenceswillclearlyarise,dependinguponwhichoftheseapproachesisfollowed,butthesecondseemsmoreconsistentwiththecontextoftheBerneConvention,andwithitsobjectandpurpose(Article31oftheViennaTreaty).

55SOED,pp.888.

56WTOPanel,pp.44.

57SOED,pp.1940.

58PaulGoldstein,InternationalCopyright:Principles,LawandPractice5.5(2001).


26/86

SCCR/9/7page24

Accordingly,thephrasenormalexploitationshouldbeinterpretedasincludinginadditiontothoseformsofexploitationthatcurrentlygeneratesignificantortangiblerevenue,thoseformsofexploitationwhich,withacertaindegreeoflikelihoodandplausibility,couldacquireconsiderableeconomicorpracticalimportance.

59Accordingly,exceptionsunder

nationallawthatdonotenterintoeconomiccompetition(presentorpotential)withnon-exemptedusesshouldnotbecontrarytothesecondconditionofArticle9(2).Whatis

thecase,then,ofausethatdoesnotenterintoeconomiccompetitionwiththeinterestsofthecopyrightownerbutwhichnonethelesscreatesaneconomicbenefitfortheuser?Shouldthisbeconsideredtobeausewithinthescopeofanormalexploitationofthatwork?Inthisregard,itmustberememberedthatArticle9(2)wasintendedtoaccommodatethoseexceptionsalreadyexistingundernationallaws,someofwhichcouldhavebeenregardedascapableofcreatinganeconomicbenefittotheuser.

60Thiswasexpresslyaddressedas

followsbytheWTOPanel,ininterpretingthesamephrase(doesnotconflictwithanormalexploitation.)inArticle13oftheTRIPSAgreement.

...inourview,noteveryuseofawork,which,inprincipleiscoveredbythescopeofexclusiverightsandinvolvescommercialgain,necessarilyconflictswithanormalexploitationofthatwork.Ifthiswerethecase,hardlyanyexceptionorlimitationcouldpassthetestofthesecondconditionandArticle13mightbeleftdevoidofmeaning,becausenormalexploitationwouldbeequatedwithfulluseofexclusiverights.

61

ThePanelthenwentontosay:Webelievethatanexceptionorlimitationtoanexclusiverightindomestic

legislationrisestothelevelofaconflictwithanormalexploitationofthework(i.e.,thecopyrightorratherthewholebundleofexclusiverightsconferredbytheownershipofthecopyright),ifuses,thatinprinciplearecoveredbythatrightbutexemptedundertheexceptionorlimitation,enterintoeconomiccompetitionwiththewaysthatright-holdersnormallyextracteconomicvaluefromthatrighttothework(i.e.,thecopyright)andtherebydeprivethemofsignificantortangiblecommercialgains.

62

Thereisanotheraspectoftheadjectivenormalthatisnotconsideredinthepassagesabove,namelytheextenttowhichthistermembracesnormativeconsiderationsofthetruetype,i.e.,considerationsastowhatthecopyrightownersmarketshouldcover,aswellasthemoreempiricalinquiriesintowhatispresently,andmaybe,thecase.OnthefactsthataroseintheHomestylecase,therewasnorealneedtoconsiderthis,astheporkbarrelexceptioninissuetherehadnoneofthesignificantjustificationsthatoftenunderliecopyright59

WTOPanel,p48,paragraph6.180.60

Thispointwascommentedupon,albeitindirectly,intheSwedish/BIRPIprogrammefortheStockholmConference:Inthisconnection,the[1964]StudyGroupobservedthat,ontheonehand,itwasobviousthatalltheformsofexploitingaworkwhichhad,orwerelikelytoacquire,considerableeconomicorpracticalimportancemustinprinciplebereservedtotheauthors;restrictionsthatmightrestrictthepossibilitiesopentoauthorsintheserespectswereunacceptable.Ontheotherhand,itshouldnotbeforgottenthatdomesticlawsalreadycontainedaseriesofexceptionsinfavorofvariouspublicandculturalinterestsandthatitwouldbeinvaintosupposethatcountrieswouldbereadyatthisstagetoabolishtheseexceptionstoanyappreciableextent.Records1967,Vol.I,pp.112(DocS/1).

61WTOPanel,pp.48,paragraph6.182.62 WTOPanel,pp.48,paragraph6.183.


27/86

SCCR/9/7page25

exceptions,suchasfreespeech,scholarship,educationandsoon.63

Inotherinstances,however,thiswillbeanimportantquestion,forexample,wheretheexceptionrelatestoresearchandscholarshiportousesbylibraries,andthequestionthenarisingis,whetherthesearemarketsthatthecopyrightownershouldbeabletocontrolinanormativesense?Normalandnormativeheresuggestaninquirythatlookstonon-economicaswellaseconomicconsiderations,andinevitablyinvolvessomekindofbalancingprocess.

IfonehasregardonlytotheobjectandpurposesoftheBerneConvention(...a

Uniontoprotect,inaseffectiveanduniformmanneraspossible,therightsofauthorsintheirliteraryandartisticworks),thereislittle,ifany,supporttobefoundforsuchabalancingapproach.Interpretationoftreatyprovisions,however,underbothcustomaryinternationallawandtheViennaConvention,requiresthatthisshouldbedoneinthecontextofthetreatyaswellasitsobjectsandpurposes,andthisinvolvesconsiderationofthetextofthetreatyasawhole.Asnotedabove,theBerneConventioncontains,andhascontainedforalongtime,aseriesofprovisionsthatacknowledgethatlimitationsandexceptionstoauthorsrightsmaybemadeincertainspecifiedcircumstancesthatarejustifiedbyothernon-economicpublicpolicyconsiderations:see,forexample,Articles2(4),2bis(1),10(1)and(2),10bis(1)and(2)thathavealreadybeendiscussedabove.Eachoftheseissubjecttodifferingconditions,butisunderpinnedbysomekindofnon-authorcenteredandnon-economicnormativeconsideration,suchasfreedomofinformationandparticipatorydemocracy(Articles2(4)andArticle2bis(1)),criticismandreview(Article10(1)),educationalpurposes(Article10(2)),andnewsreporting(Article10bis(1)and(2)).TheonlydifferencebetweentheseprovisionsandArticle9(2)isthattheformerembody(togreaterorlessextent),inthetextofeachprovision,theresultsofthebalancingprocessthathasbeenachievedbythesuccessiverevisionconferencesthathaveadoptedthem,whereasArticle9(2)isconsciouslyframedasanomnibusorumbrellaprovisionthatisprospectivelyapplicabletoallexceptionstothereproductionright.Viewedagainstthiswidercontextofthetreaty,itthereforeseemslogicaltoconcludethatthescopeoftheinquiryrequiredunderthesecondstepofArticle9(2),doesincludeconsiderationofnon-economicnormativeconsiderations,i.e.,whetherthisparticularkindofuseisonethatthecopyrightownershouldcontrol.ThisinterpretationfurthermoreisconsistentwithwhatistobefoundinthepreparatoryworkfortheStockholmConference,alegitimatesupplementaryaidtotreatyinterpretation.ItwillberecalledherethattheConferenceprogrammecontainedthecomment,thatitshouldnotbeforgottenthatdomesticlawsalreadycontainedaseriesofexceptionsinfavorofvariouspublicandculturalinterestsandthatitwouldbeinvaintosupposethatcountrieswouldbereadyatthisstagetoabolishtheseexceptionstoanyappreciableextent.

64Furthermore,the

recordsoftheConferenceandthevariousamendmentsproposedbydelegatesindicatethattheywereseekingtoreachsomegeneraldescriptionofthepurposesforwhichexceptionsmightbemadethatwouldaccommodatetheexistingpublicinterestexceptionsinnationallaws.Finally,itmustbesaidthatifawhollyeconomicapproachistakentothesecondstepofArticle9(2),thiswillleavelittle,ifany,worktobedonebythethirdstepwhichisconcernedspecificallywiththeinterestsoftheauthor(seefurtherbelow).Leavingasideusesthatarepurelydeminimis,thegreatbulkofusesthatfallwithinArticle9couldberegardedasbeingwithinthescopeofthenormalexploitationofawork,atleastpotentially,astechnologyreducestransactioncosts.AnyfreeusethatispermittedunderArticle9(2)willthereforehavethepotentialofbeinginconflictwithanormaleconomicexploitationofthework,leadingtotheconsequencethatthethirdstepwillneverbereached.Bringingnon

63Id.64 Records1967,Vol.I,pp.112(DocS/1).


28/86

SCCR/9/7page26

economicconsiderationsandjustificationsintothesecondstep,however,meansthattheremaywellbeusesthatwillnotbeinconflictwithwhatshouldbewithinthenormalexploitationofthework(inatrulynormativesense),butmaynotsatisfythethirdstep(seefurtherbelow).

Whiletheforegoinghasthesemblanceofcoherence,itnonethelessleavesthe

applicationofthesecondstepofArticle9(2)moreopen-endedanduncertain.Thewordsnormalexploitationgivenoguidanceastothekindsofnon-economicnormativeconsiderationsthatmayberelevanthere,andtheextenttowhichtheymaylimitusesthatwouldotherwisebewithinthescopeofnormalexploitationbythecopyrightowner.Strikingthisbalanceisleftasamatterfornationallegislation.Valuejudgmentswillneedtobemade,andthesewillclearlyvaryaccordingtothesocietyandcultureconcerned.Inkeepingwiththefirststep,however,thesenon-economicpurposeswillneedtobeclearlyandspecificallyarticulated,andwillneedtobesetagainstthestatedobjectiveoftheConvention,whichistheprotectionoftherightsofauthors.Thisindicatesthatsuchjustificationswillneedaclearpublicinterestcharacterthatgoesbeyondthepurelyindividualinterestsofcopyrightusers.Inthisregard,itcanbesaidthattheyshouldbeofanalogoussignificancetothosealreadyacceptedasappropriateunderotherprovisionsoftheBerneConvention,suchasArticle10and10bis.

DoesNotUnreasonablyPrejudicetheLegitimateInterestsoftheAuthorLittleguidanceonthemeaningofthisconditionistobefoundintherecordsofthe

StockholmConference,apartfromtheobservationintheConferenceprogrammethattherewastheconsiderabledifficultyoffindingaformulacapableofsafeguardingthelegitimateinterestsoftheauthorwhilehavingasufficientmarginoffreedomtothenationallegislationtosatisfyimportantsocialorculturalneeds.

65Theadditionalcommentwasofferedthatthe

formulationproposedintheprogrammeseemslikely,however,toofferaguaranteetoalltheopposinginterestsconcerned.TheseremarksindicatethatsomefurtherbalancingofinterestsisrequiredbythethirdstepofArticle9(2),andthisisconfirmedbyaconsiderationofthemeaningsofthekeywordsusedinitsformulation.

Thus,inthepresentcontext,theinterestsinquestionarethoseoftheauthor,notthoseoftheright-holderasinArticle13oftheTRIPSAgreement.AstherightsofauthorsthatareprotectedunderBerneincludebotheconomicandnon-economic(moral)rights(underArticle6bis),itisclearinterestsinArticle9(2)coversbothpecuniaryandnon-pecuniaryinterests.

66

Asforthetermlegitimate,thishasadictionarymeaningofconformableto,sanctionedorauthorizedbylaworprinciple;lawful;justifiable;proper.

67Thiscouldmean

lawfulinapositivistsense,buttheWTOPanelalsonotedthatthishastheconnotationof65

Ibid,VolI,p113(DocS/1,pp.43).66

Nordemannetalatp109makethepointthatthereferencetotheauthorinArticle9(2)shouldalwaysbeinterpretedtoreadauthorandhissuccessorsintitleorotherholderofexclusiveexploitationrightsandgoontosay:Thebalancingofinterestundertakenhereconcernsnotonlythepersonalinterestsoftheauthorbutalsotheeconomicintereststhatcanberepresentedbycopyrightproprietors.InthecaseofArticle13ofTRIPS,however,thiswouldnotnecessarilybethecaseasmoralrightsareexpresslyexcludedfromthescopeofTRIPS67 OED,pp.2496.


29/86

SCCR/9/7page27

legitimacyfromamorenormativeperspective.68

Itthereforeseemsreasonabletoconcludethat,whilethephraselegitimateinterestscoversalltheinterests(economicandnon

economic)ofauthorsthataretobeprotectedundertheStockholm/ParisActs,thisisnotanunqualifiedorabsoluteconception:theremustbesomenormativejustificationunderpinningtheseinterests.Inotherwords,thereisapropersphereofapplicationforauthorsinterests,thatisnottobepursuedregardlessofotherconsiderations.Thisappearstobringusback

againtothekindofbalancingprocessthatappliesunderthesecondstepofArticle9(2),althoughclearlythethirdstepgoesfurtherthanconsiderationofjusttheeconomicinterestsoftheauthor.

Asfortheremainingtermsusedinthiscondition,prejudiceconnotesharm,damageorinjury,whileunreasonableandnotunreasonableconnotenotbeingproportionateorwithinthelimitsofreason,notgreatlylessormorethanmightbethoughtlikelyorappropriateorofafair,averageorconsiderableamountorsize.

69Itwillobviouslybe

moredifficulttoshowunreasonableprejudicethanwouldbethecaseifthetestwereprejudicealone.

70Thewordsnotunreasonablyprejudicethereforeallowthemakingof

exceptionsthatmaycauseprejudiceofasignificantorsubstantialkindtotheauthorslegitimateinterests,providedthat(a)theexceptionotherwisesatisfiesthefirstandsecondconditionsstipulatedinArticle9(2),and(b)itisproportionateorwithinthelimitsofreason,i.e.,ifitisnotunreasonable.Therequirementofproportionalityclearlyimpliesthattheremaybeconditionsplacedontheusagethatwillmakeanyprejudicethatiscausedreasonable,forexample,wheretheseinterestsareprotectedthrougharequirementthattheusageshouldbedonesubjecttocertainconditionsorwithincertainguidelines,thatthereshouldbeattribution(wheretheremightotherwisebeunreasonableprejudicetoanauthorsmoralrights),oreventhatpaymentshouldbemadefortheuse.

71

ItisthereforeclearthatexceptionsunderArticle9(2)maytaketheformofeitherfreeusesorcompulsorylicenses,dependingessentiallyonthenumberofreproductionsmade.72

68Ibid.

69SOED,pp.2496(meaningofreasonable).

70 Records1967,VolII,pp.883(observationofProf.EUlmer,chairmanofMainCommitteeI).SoalsotothesameeffectistheWIPOGuidewhichstates:atp56:allcopyingisdamagingtosomedegree:asinglephotocopymaymeanonecopyofthejournalremainingunsoldandiftheauthorhadashareintheproceedsofpublicationhelostit.

71SpecificsupportforthislastpossibilityiscontainedintheReportofMainCommitteeIwhichexpandsuponthefollowingexamplegivenbyProfessorUlmer,thechairofthatcommittee,inthecourseofitsdiscussions:aratherlargenumberofcopiesforuseinindustrialundertakingsmaynotunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor,providedthat,accordingtonationallegislation,anequitableremunerationispaid.Ifasmallnumberofcopiesismade,photocopyingmaybepermittedwithoutpayment,particularlyforindividualorscientificuse.Records1967,Vol.II,pp.1145-1146.ProfessorUlmerscommentsappearatpp.883.

72Tosimilareffect,seeNordemannetalatpp.109:Ingeneral,weconsidertheinterestsoftheauthoralwaystohavebeenunreasonablyinvadedwhenhecandemonstrateareasonableinterestthatthistypeofexploitationshouldremainreservedforhimorthatitshouldpermittedonlyuponpaymentofasuitableroyalty.Thisinterpolationofahalfwayhouse,however,hasbeenstronglycriticizedbytheFrenchcommentators,Desboisetal,asbeingunjustifiedonthegroundthatthedemarcationbetweenthetwokindsofprovision(freeuseorcompulsorylicense)willalwaysbedifficulttodrawinpracticeandthatthecorrectchoicethereforeshouldsimplybebetweenpermissionandprohibition.HenceDesboisetal,pp.207say:Alaverit,

[Footnotecontinuedonnextpage]


30/86

SCCR/9/7page28

ContributionstotheMakingofaCinematographicWorkForsakeofcompletenessinoursurvey,referencemustbetoArticle14bis(2)(b),which

hasarestrictedoperationinrelationtothoseBernemembercountrieswhoselawsincludeamongtheownersofcopyrightinacinematographicworkauthorswhohavebroughtcontributionstothemakingofthework.

Wherethisisso,suchauthorsmaynotinthe

absenceofanycontraryorspecialstipulation,objecttothereproduction,distribution,publicperformance,communicationtothepublicbywire,broadcastingoranyothercommunicationtothepublic,ortothesubtitlingordubbingoftexts,ofthework. Thecategoriesofauthorswhoareaffectedherearepotentiallyverylimited,inviewofArticle14bis(3)whichprovidesthat,unlesscontraryprovisionismadeunderthenationallawinquestion,thesepersonsdonotincludeauthorsofscenarios,dialoguesandmusicalworkscreatedforthemakingofthecinematographicfilm,andtheprincipaldirectorofthefilm.However,intheeventthatsuchcategoriesofauthorsarerecognizedunderagivennationallaw,theexceptioncontainedinArticle14bis(2)(b)mustbeapplied,unlessthatlawmakessomecontraryprovision.ThepurposebehindArticle14bis(2)(b)isclearenough:tofacilitatetheexploitationofthecinematographicworkasawhole,andtoensurethatthisisnotrestrictedorinhibitedbyobjectionsfromco-authorswhosecontributionstotheoverallworkmayberegardedascomparativelyminor.ItisinterestingtonotethatinastudybytheInternationalOfficeofWIPO,itwassuggestedthatthiswasalimitationorexceptiontoprotectionwhich,ifcorrectlyapplied,wouldnotconflictwiththenormalexploitationoftheworkorunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsoftheright-holders.

73Neitherofthesecriteria,

however,areincludedinArticle14bis(2)(b)itself,whichprovidesfornoconditionsorrestrictionsonthemakingofthisexception.WhethertheyarerelevantforthepurposesoftheapplicationoftheTRIPSAgreementisconsideredbelow.

(c) CompulsoryLicensesAllowedUndertheBerneConventionIthasalreadybeensuggestedthatanumberoftheexceptionsprovidedforunderthe

ParisActofBerneallowmembercountriestoimposecompulsorylicensesincertaincircumstances.However,itisalsorelevanttonotethatthereareseveralprovisionsoftheConventionthatacknowledgethisspecifically.TheseapplytotherecordingofmusicalworksandwithrespecttotheexclusiverightsrecognizedunderArticle11bis.

CompulsoryLicenseswithRespecttotheRecordingofMusicalWorksThisisprovidedforasfollowsinArticle13(1):

(1)EachcountryoftheUnionmayimposeforitselfreservationsandconditionsontheexclusiverightgrantedtotheauthorofamusicalworkandtotheauthorofanywords,therecordingofwhichtogetherwiththemusicalworkhasalreadybeenauthorizedbythelatter,toauthorizethesoundrecordingofthatmusicalwork,together

[Footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage]lintroductiondelalicenceobligatoireprocdeduneinterpolation,carlaformuledelart.9,al.2nenfaitpastat.Lechoixparatdevoirtrerestreintlapermissionoulinterdiction.TheImplicationsoftheTRIPSAgreementonTreatiesadministeredbyWIPO,publishedin[1996]IndustrialPropertyandCopyright164,171.

73


31/86

SCCR/9/7page29

withsuchwords,ifany;butallsuchreservationsandconditionsshallapplyonlyinthecountrieswhichhaveimposedthemandshallnot,inanycircumstances,beprejudicialtotherightsoftheseauthorstoobtainequitableremunerationwhich,intheabsenceofagreement,shallbefixedbycompetentauthority.ThisprovisionwasinsertedaslongagoastheBerlinRevisionof1908,whereit

reflectedapragmaticcompromisethatwasalreadyemergingatthenationallevelbetweenmusicalcopyrightowners(mainlypublishers)andthenewlyemergingrecordingindustry.WhiletheBerlinActrecognizedthattherightofauthorsextendedtothemechanicalreproductionoftheirworks,nationallawswereallowedthepossibilityofintroducingcompulsoryrecordinglicensesinfavoroftherecordingindustry,providingthatindustrywithaguaranteeofaccesstomaterialwhichithad,priortothistime,beenabletousefreeofcharge.Initspresentform,Article13(1)doesnotexpresslymentioncompulsorylicenses,butthereferencetoreservationsandconditionsontheexclusiverecordingrightoftheauthorandthefurtherreferencethatthismustnotbeprejudicialtotherightsoftheauthorstoobtainequitableremunerationindicatethatcompulsorylicensesareclearlycontemplatedasbeingwithinthescopeoftheprovision.

SofarastheinterpretationofArticle13(1)isconcerned,thefollowingfurthercommentscanbemade.1. ItstilloperatesasapermissiblederogationfromthegeneralrightofreproductiongrantedunderArticle9(1).Accordingly,thereisnoobligationonanyUnionmembertoimposereservationsorconditionsontheexerciseofthatrightinrespectoftherecordingofmusicalworksandwords.2. Reservationsandconditionsmayonlybeappliedinrespectofthesoundrecordingofmusicalworksandaccompanyingwords.3. Reservationsandconditionsmayonlybeimposediftherecordingofthemusicalworkandwordshasalreadybeenauthorizedbytheauthor.Thisleavestheauthorwiththeprerogativeofdecidingwhenthefirstmechanicalexploitationofhisworkshalloccur,anditisonlyafterthistimereservationsandconditionsmaybeimposed.Thisprovisionpreserves,insubstance,theauthorsrightofdivulgation,oneofthebasicmoralrightsthatisnotexpresslyrecognizedundertheConvention.4. Inanyevent,thereservationsandconditionsauthorizedbyArticle13(1)donotapplytotherecordingofwordsalone:thesemustaccompanythemusicalwork,asinthecaseofasong,opera,oratorioandsoon.5. Thereservationsandconditionswhichareappliedcanonlyhaveeffectinthecountrywhichhasimposedthem.ThisisamatterthatisalsodealtwithinArticle13(3)whichprovidesthat:

(3)Recordingsmadeinaccordancewithparagraphs(1)ofthisArticleandimportedwithoutpermissionfromthepartiesconcernedintoacountrywheretheyaretreatedasinfringingrecordingsshallbeliabletoseizure.Accordingly,anyimmunitywhichappliestorecordingsthathavebeenlawfullymade

underArticle13(1)appliesonlywithinthec