Fair compensation owed for reproductions effected using a printer connected to a pc
29-08-2013 Print this page
Copyright Directive not applicable to acts of using protected works between the date of entry into force 22 June 2001 and transposition date 22 december 2002.
"29. [...] with regard to the period from 22 June 2001, the date on which Directive 2001/29 entered into force, to 22 December 2002, the date by which that directive was to have been transposed into national law, acts of using protected works or other subject-matter are not affected by that directive."
Authorisation rightholder no bearing on fair compensation owed for reproduction.
"39. Where, in the particular case, that reproduction right has been preserved, the provisions relating to fair compensation cannot apply, given that the limitation provided for by the national legislature does not allow a reproduction to be made without the authorisation of the authors and, therefore, it does not cause the type of harm for which fair compensation would constitute recompense. Conversely, where, in the particular case, the reproduction right has not been retained, the act of authorisation does not affect the harm caused to the authors, and cannot therefore have any bearing on the fair compensation owed.
40. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the fifth question is that, in the context of an exception or limitation provided for by the relevant provision of Directive 2001/29, an act by which a rightholder may have authorised the reproduction of his protected work or other subject-matter has no bearing on the fair compensation owed, whether it is provided for on a compulsory or an optional basis under the relevant provision of that directive."
Possibility of applying technological measures does not affect right to fair compensation.
"57. Having regard to the voluntary nature of those technological measures, even where such a possibility exists, the non-application of those measures cannot have the effect that no fair compensation is due.
58. Nevertheless, it is open to the Member State concerned to make the actual level of compensation owed to rightholders dependent on whether or not such technological measures are applied, so that those rightholders are encouraged to make use of them and thereby voluntarily contribute to the proper application of the private copying exception."
Reproduction with photographic or other process having similar effects includes reproductions effected using a printer connected to a personal computer; fair compensation can then be owed for a single process, however overall amount of compensation must not be substantially different from the amount fixed for a reproduction obtained through a single device
"80. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second and third questions is that the concept of ‘reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as including reproductions effected using a printer and a personal computer, where the two are linked together. In this case, it is open to the Member States to put in place a system in which the fair compensation is paid by the persons in possession of a device contributing, in a non-autonomous manner, to the single process of reproduction of the protected work or other subject-matter on the given medium, in so far as those persons have the possibility of passing on the cost of the levy to their customers, provided that the overall amount of the fair compensation owed as recompense for the harm suffered by the author at the end of that single process must not be substantially different from the amount fixed for a reproduction obtained by means of a single device."
C-457/11 to C-460/11 - ECLI:EU:C:2013:426
