Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
DamianFlisak
4.CONSCIOUSUSEOFWORK
Inrecentyears,theECJappearstohavebeenpromotinganadditionalcondition
ofworkuse.InsomerulingstheCourtreiteratedtherelevanceofaconscious,inten-
tionaluseofworkasoneoftheassumptionsofworkuse:“Tehotelisanorganization
whichintervenes,infullknowledgeoftheconsequencesofitsaction,togiveaccessto
theprotectedworktoitscustomers”23,“theproprietorofapublichouseefectsacom-
municationwhenheintentionallytransmitsbroadcastworks,viaatelevisionscreen
andspeakers,tothecustomerspresentinthatestablishment”24,“theusermakesanact
ofcommunicationwhenitintervenes,infullknowledgeoftheconsequencesofits
action,togiveaccesstoabroadcastcontainingtheprotectedworktoitscustomers”25.
Inaccordancewiththesecourtrulings,onlyconsciouslyundertakenusesshallberel-
evant;theworkcontentistobedeliveredtothepublicintentionally26.Teworkuser
shallencompasswithitsconsciousnessalltheconsequencesoftheworkdeliveryto
thepublic27.TesummaryoftheseprinciplesarecontainedintheECJruling,where
theCourtdecidedwhethermakingitpossiblefortelevisionprogrammestobeviewed
andheardbythepatientsofarehabilitationcentreconstitutesa“communicationto
thepublic”28.Puttingthisanotherway,useofworksisirrelevantwhenitisunin-
tended,marginal,orincidental.Tedeminimislogicisalsoreflectedhere,butunlike
inArt.29(2)PCAsuchsituationsarenotcoveredbyexploitationrights.Tediferen-
tiationbetweenrelevantandirrelevantworkusescanalsobeformulatedinsemantic
terms.InGermanytherelevantWerknutzungiscontrarytheirrelevantWerkverwend-
ung29.Inviewofthelackofsuitablemeasures(internalemotionsandmindsetcannot
beverifiedforobviousreasons),incourtpracticethe“consciousness”ofworkusecould
beverifiedbasedonobjectivelyaccessiblefacts.Becausetheinfringementofcopyright
doesnotrequirefault(thelattermayafectthelevelofcompensationclaims),itis
23SociedadGeneraldeAutoresyEditoresdeEspaña(SGAE)vRafaelHotelesSA,
EU:C:2006:764(paragraph42).
24FootballAssociationPremierLeagueLtdandOthersvQCLeisureandOthersandKaren
MurphyvMediaProtectionServicesLtd,EU:C:2011:631,paragraph196.
25PhonographicPerformance(Ireland)LimitedvIrelandandAttorneyGeneral,EU:C:2012:141,
paragraph31.
26Seealso:J.vonUngern-Sternberg,DieBindungswirkungdesUnionsrechtsunddieurheber-
rechtlichenVerwertungsrechte,(in:)FestschriftfürJoachimBornkammzum65.Geburtstag,München
2014,p.1019–1021.
27J.vonUngern-Sternberg,UrheberrechtlicherWerknutzer,TäterundStörerimLichtedes
UnionsrechtsZugleichBesprechungzuEuGH,Urt.v.15.3.2012–EUGH15.03.2012Aktenzeichen
C-162/10–PhonographicPerformance(Ireland),undUrt.v.15.3.2012–EUGH15.03.2012Akten-
zeichenC-135/10–SCF,GerwerblicherRechtsschutzundUrheberrecht,2012,p.578.
28WithinthemeaningofArticle3(1)ofDirective2001/29/ECoftheEuropeanParliament
andoftheCouncilof22May2001ontheharmonisationofcertainaspectsofcopyrightandrelated
rightsintheinformationsociety(2)andArticle8(2)ofDirective2006/115/ECoftheEuropean
ParliamentandoftheCouncilof12December2006onrentalrightandlendingrightandoncer-
tainrightsrelatedtocopyright;see:RehaTrainingGesellschaftfürSport-undUnfallrehabilitation
mbHvGesellschaftfürmusikalischeAuführungs-undmechanischeVervielfältigungsrechteeV
(GEMA),ECLI:EU:C:2016:379:“thepatientsofsucharehabilitationcentrecannot,inprinciple,
enjoyworksbroadcastwithoutthetargetedinterventionoftheoperatorofthatcentre”.
29InPolishtheirrelevantnużycieutworu”asoppositiontoirrelevantnkorzystaniezutworu”.
132
