Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Evolutionofcopyright–realityorillusion?
importanttodistinguishbetween“conscioususe”asan(necessary)elementofwork
useand“fault”(understoodasintentionalinfringementofcopyright)asacircumstance
relevantinthecourt’sclaimevaluationprocess.
Inaddition,itcanbeassumedthatinanotherECJjudgmenttherequirements
fortherelevantuseofworkhavebeenadditionallytightenedup30.Notonlyis“con-
scious”userequired,butalsoconsumerperceptionhasbecomerelevant:theyneedto
betargetedand“receptive”31towardsthework.Tisjudgmentconcernedadentistwho
providedaradioinhiswaitingroom,makingradiobroadcastsaudibletohispatients.
Tecourtstatedthatthepatientsweremerely‘caught’bychance:“Tepatients
ofadentistvisitadentalpracticewiththesoleobjectiveofreceivingtreatment,as
thebroadcastingofphonogramsisinnowayapartofdentaltreatment[ł]Accord-
ingly,itcannotbepresumedthattheusualcustomersofadentistarereceptiveas
regardsthebroadcastinquestion”32.
Inanother,highlycontroversial,judgment(BezpečnostnísoftwarováasociacevMin-
isterstvukultury33)theCourtshedlightonanotheraspectofworkuse.Becauseofits
importance,thisisworthquotingatsomelength:“[ł]if,inthecontextoftelevision
broadcastingofaprogramme,agraphicuserinterfaceisdisplayed,televisionviewers
receiveacommunicationofthatgraphicuserinterfacesolelyinapassivemanner,with-
outthepossibilityofintervening.Teycannotusethefeatureofthatinterfacewhich
consistsinenablinginteractionbetweenthecomputerprogramandtheuser.Having
regardtothefactthat,bytelevisionbroadcasting,thegraphicuserinterfaceisnotcom-
municatedtothepublicinsuchawaythatindividualscanhaveaccesstotheessential
elementcharacterisingtheinterface,thatistosay,interactionwiththeuser,thereisno
communicationtothepublicofthegraphicuserinterface”34.Followingthisapproach,
itiscontendedthattelevisionbroadcastingofagraphicuserinterfacedoesnotconsti-
tutecommunicationtothepublicofawork,simplyduetothefactthattheusersdo
nothaveaccesstoitsbasicfeature–interactivity.Tecourt’spositionisfarfromobvi-
ous,asitwascommonlyacceptedthatworkcreativityshouldnotbeverifiedthrough
theconceptofitsfunctionality,inthiscase–interactivity.
5.USEOFWORK–LIMITATIONS
Tepositivedefinitionofworkusecauseshugedifculties.Tosomeextentmore
fruitfulcouldbeitslimitationinanegativeway.Teuseoftheworkwillbeinextri-
cablylinkedwiththeuseofitscreativefeatures.Onethresholddefinesthecategory
ofinspiredworks(Art.2sec.4PCA).Itisalsowidelyacceptedthattheactofpas-
sive–nomenomen–useoftheworkshouldremainoutsidethescopeofcopyright
30SocietàConsortileFonografici(SCF)vMarcoDelCorso,EU:C:2012:140.
31InGermannaufnahmebereit”,inPolish–“podatni”.
32Paragraph98.
33EU:C:2010:816.
34Paragraph57.Teadvocategeneralgoesfurther.Inhisopiniondeliveredon14October
2010(EU:C:2010:611):“Bythebroadcastingofthatinterfaceonatelevisionscreen,itlosesits
originalitybyreasonofthefactthattheessentialelementwhichmakesitoriginal,thatistosay,
interactionwiththeuser,ismadeimpossible”(paragraph85).
133
