Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| Writing for the Court | Malenovský |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2011:798 |
| Docket Number | C-145/10 |
| Date | 01 December 2011 |
| Procedure Type | Reference for a preliminary ruling |
Case C-145/10
Eva-Maria Painer
v
Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien)
(Jurisdiction in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 6(1) – More than one defendant – Directive 93/98/EEC – Article 6 – Protection of photographs – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 2 – Reproduction – Use of a portrait photograph as a template to establish a photo-fit – Article 5(3)(d) – Exceptions and limitations as regards quotations – Article 5(3)(e) – Exceptions and limitations for the purposes of public security – Article 5(5))
Summary of the Judgment
1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – More than one defendant – Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to one of the co-defendants – Condition – Connection
(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))
2. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 93/98 – Field of application – Portrait photograph – Included – Conditions
(Council Directive 93/98, Art. 6)
3. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 –Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Reproduction right – Exceptions and limitations
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 5(3)(e) and (5))
4. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Making a work available to the public – Field of application
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 5(3)(d))
5. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 –Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Reproduction right – Exceptions and limitations
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 5(3)(d) and (5))
6. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 –Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Reproduction right – Exceptions and limitations
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 5(3)(d) and (e), and (5))
1. On a proper construction of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the application of that provision is not precluded simply because actions brought against several defendants for substantially identical copyright infringements rest on national legal bases which vary according to the Member States concerned. It is for the referring court to ascertain, having regard to all the elements of the case, whether there would be a risk of irreconcilable judgments if those actions were to be determined separately.
(see para. 84, operative part 1)
2. On a proper construction of Article 6 of Directive 93/98 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, a portrait photograph can, in accordance with that provision, be protected by copyright if, which it is for the national court to determine in each case, that photograph is an intellectual creation of the author reflecting his personality and expressing his free and creative choices in the production of that photograph. Once it has been determined that the portrait photograph in question is a work, its protection is no less than that enjoyed by any other work, including other photographic works.
(see para. 99, operative part 2)
3. Article 5(3)(e) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in the light of Article 5(5) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that media, such as newspaper publishers, may not, on their own initiative, use a work protected by copyright by invoking an objective of public security. However, it is conceivable that a newspaper publisher might, in specific cases, contribute to the fulfilment of such an objective by publishing a photograph of a person for whom a search has been launched. It must be a requirement that that initiative be taken, first, within the framework of a decision or action taken by the competent national authorities to ensure public security and, second, by agreement and in coordination with those authorities, in order to avoid the risk of running counter to the measures taken by them, but it is not, however, necessary for a specific, current and express appeal to be made by the security authorities for a photograph to be published for the purposes of an investigation.
(see para. 116, operative part 3)
4. In order to ensure that Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society is interpreted, in so far as possible, in the light of the applicable rules of international law, and in particular those set forth in Article 10(1) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the expression ‘mis[e] à la disposition du public [d’une oeuvre]’ (making a work available to the public), in the sense of Article 5(3)(d) of that directive must be understood as meaning the act of making that work available to the public.
(see paras 126-128)
5. On a proper construction of Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in the light of Article 5(5) of that directive, its application is not precluded by the circumstance that a press report quoting a work or other protected subject-matter is not a literary work protected by copyright.
That provision is intended to strike a fair balance between the right to freedom of expression of users of a work or other protected subject-matter and the reproduction right conferred on authors. That fair balance is struck, in particular, by favouring the exercise of the users’ right to freedom of expression over the interest of the author in being able to prevent the reproduction of extracts from his work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, whilst ensuring that the author has the right, in principle, to have his name indicated.
(see paras 134-135, 137, operative part 4)
6. Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in the light of Article 5(5) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that its application is subject to the obligation to indicate the source, including the name of the author or performer, of the work or other protected subject‑matter quoted. If, however, pursuant to Article 5(3)(e) of Directive 2001/29, that name has not been indicated, that obligation must be regarded as having been fulfilled if the source alone is indicated. That is so when photographs have been made available to the public by the competent national security authorities in the context of a criminal investigation but, at the time of that original lawful use, the author’s name was not indicated.
(see paras 143, 147, 149, operative part 5)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
1 December 2011 (*)
(Jurisdiction in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 6(1) – More than one defendant – Directive 93/98/EEC – Article 6 – Protection of photographs – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 2 – Reproduction – Use of a portrait photograph as a template to establish a photo-fit – Article 5(3)(d) – Exceptions and limitations as regards quotations – Article 5(3)(e) – Exceptions and limitations for the purposes of public security – Article 5(5))
In Case C‑145/10,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria), made by decision of 8 March 2010, received at the Court on 22 March 2010, in the proceedings
Eva-Maria Painer
v
Standard VerlagsGmbH,
Axel Springer AG,
Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH,
Spiegel-Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co KG,
Verlag M. DuMont Schauberg Expedition der Kölnischen Zeitung GmbH & Co KG,
THE COURT (Third Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), E. Juhász, G. Arestis and T. von Danwitz, Judges,
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– Ms Painer, by G. Zanger, Rechtsanwalt,
– Standard VerlagsGmbH, by M. Windhager, Rechtsanwältin,
– the Austrian Government, by E. Riedl, acting as Agent,
– the Spanish Government, by N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent,
– the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Russo, avvocato dello Stato,
– the European Commission, by S. Grünheid, acting as Agent,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 April 2011,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and Article 5(3)(d) and (e) and (5) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
2 The reference has been made in proceedings between Ms Painer, the applicant in the main proceedings, a freelance photographer, and five newspaper publishers, namely Standard VerlagsGmbH (‘Standard’), Axel Springer AG (‘Axel Springer’), Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH, Spiegel-Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co KG and Verlag M. DuMont Schauberg Expedition der Kölnischen Zeitung GmbH & Co KG, concerning...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
„Оvergas Mrezhi“ AD and Sdruzhenie s nestopanska tsel „Balgarska gazova asotsiatsia“ v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR).
...alguna. Así pues, aun suponiendo que así fuera, no por ello resulta inadmisible dicha cuestión (sentencia de 1 de diciembre de 2011, Painer, C‑145/10, EU:C:2011:798, apartados 64 y 65 y jurisprudencia 46 En el presente asunto, la primera cuestión guarda relación evidente con el objeto del l......
-
Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV.
...in the sense that it is its author’s own intellectual creation. (16) 43. In paragraph 88 of the judgment of 1 December 2011, Painer (C‑145/10, EU:C:2011:798), the Court ruled that an intellectual creation is an author’s own if it reflects the author’s personality. According to paragraph 39 ......
-
Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA contra G-Star Raw CV.
...1996). No sucede lo mismo en los sistemas de derechos de autor de los países anglosajones. 18 Sentencia de 1 de diciembre de 2011, Painer (C‑145/10, EU:C:2011:798), apartados 88 y 19 Sentencia de 22 de diciembre de 2010, Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace (C‑393/09, EU:C:2010:816), apartados ......
-
Funke Medien NRW GmbH contra Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
...abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 December 2011, Painer, C‑145/10, EU:C:2011:798, paragraphs 87 to 20 Second, only something which is the expression of the author’s own intellectual creation may be classified as a......
-
FRAND Undertakings: A Long Awaited Legal Qualification In Europe Paris Takes The Lead
...Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Aff. C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard Verlags GmbH (December 1, C.A. Delaware No. 1:13-cv-00008-RGA document 41, paragraphs 19-22. The content of this articl......
-
Métodos «clásicos» de interpretación
...por ejemplo, Football Association Premier League y otros (C-403/08 y C-429/08, EU:C:2011:631), apartados 162 y 163; Painer (C-145/10, EU:C:2011:798), apartado 133, y Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken (C-174/15, EU:C:2016:856), apartado 50. 276 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken ( supra nota 27......
-
Annex I. Challenges facing sports event organisers in the digital environment
...Infopaq International (ECLI:EU:C:2009:465), para 37; Court of Justice of the European Union 1 December 2011, C-145/10, Painer, (ECLI:EU:C:2011:798), para 89-93. 70 In Sweden, as an isolated case, the Swedish Court of Appeals states that the audiovisual recording of an ice hockey game doesn’......
-
Contenidos digitales y su puesta a disposición a través de internet a la luz de las últimas sentencias del TJUE. El papel fundamental del concepto de agotamiento del derecho
...del mismo al realizarla. Se remite para ello el Tribunal a su Sentencia de 1 de diciembre de 2011 (TJCE 2011/388), caso Painer , asunto C-145/10, apartado 94. Vid. en torno a la cuestión de la originalidad en la obra fotográfica nuestro trabajo GALACHO ABOLAFIO, A. F., «La originalidad en ......