Conflicts of laws in cyberspace: Rethinking international copyright

Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 103-117

  Geller, Paul Edward ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040199416     PISSN: 08863520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. WILLIAM GIBSON, COUNT ZERO 38 (1986).
2. Compare Judgment of April 24, 1974 (French Keaton decision), Cour d'appel, 1re (Paris), 83 REV. INT'L DU DROIT D'AUTEUR [RIDA] 106 (1975), English trans. in 7 INT'L REV. OF INDUS. PROP. & COPR. L. [I.I.C.] 130 (1976), aff'd, Judgment of Dec., 15 1975, Cass. civ. 1re, 88 RIDA 115 (1976) (holding that, after copyright expired in U.S., Keaton's films were no longer protected in France) with Judgment of Jan., 27 1978 (German Keaton decision), Bundesgerichtshof, 1979 GEWERBLICHER RECHTSSCHUTZ UND URHEBERRECHT - INTERNATIONALER TEIL [GRUR INT.] 50, English trans. in 10 I.I.C. 358 (1979) (affirming copyright in the same works in Germany). See also CODE DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE art. L.121-1 (1992) ("perpetual" moral right) (Fr.).
3. Compare E.C. Council Directive 93/83 of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, 1993 O.J. (L 248/15), recitals 9-15 and art. 1.2 (localizing broadcasts in transmitting country, to facilitate E.C.-wide licensing) with Judgment of Nov. 30, 1989 (Directsatellitensendung decision), Oberlandesgericht (Vienna), 1990 GRUR INT. 537, 539, aff'd, Judgment of June 16, 1992, Oberster Gerichtshof, 1992 GRUR INT. 933, English trans. in 24 I.I.C. 665 (1993) (localizing broadcasts in receiving country, to discourage making them from pirate havens) (Austria).
4. Cf. Paul Katzenberger, Urheberrechtsfragen der elektronischen Textkommunication, 1983 GRUR INT. 895, 914-17 (explaining that transborder broadcasting and network communication are subject to distinct choice-of-law analyses).
5. FRIEDRICH CARL VON SAVIGNY, A TREATISE ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, § 349, at 77-79 (Wm. Guthrie, trans., 2d ed. 1880).
6. Id., § 348, at 70; §§ 360-361, at 132-142 ; § 366, at 174-181; §§ 372-373, at 221-233 passim. Cf. 1 ERNST RABEL, THE CONFLICT OF LAWS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY 54-55 (2d ed. 1958) (proposing to characterize claims in terms common to both forum and foreign laws arguably applicable to case).
7. Cf. ALOIS TROLLER, DAS INTERNATIONALE PRIVAT- UND ZIVILPROZEßRECHT IM GEWERBLICHEN RECHTSSCHUTZ UND URHEBERRECHT 39-67 passim (1952) (noting ubiquity of intellectual products but tendency of enforcement to be local).
8. See, e.g., Judgment of May 28, 1991 (Tele-Uno II decision), Oberster Gerichtshof, 1991 GRUR INT. 920, English trans. in 23 I.I.C. 703, 707 (1992) ("alongside the law of the country of emission, in addition the copyright provisions of all those countries must be applied, which are situated at least to a considerable extent within the regular reception scope of such broadcasts") (Austria).
9. BRAINERD CURRIE, On the Displacement of the Law of the Forum, in SELECTED ESSAYS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 3, 62-65 (1963).
10. See CURRIE, Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws, id. at 178-184; The Silver Oar and All That: A Study of the Romero Case, id. at 364-373.
11. See CURRIE, Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws, id. at 178-184; The Silver Oar and All That: A Study of the Romero Case, id. at 364-373.
12. Moffatt Hancock, Three Approaches to the Choice-of-Law Problem: the Classificatory, the Functional and the Result-Selective, in XXTH CENTURY COMPARATIVE AND CONFLICTS LAW: LEGAL ESSAYS IN HONOR OF HESSEL E. YNTEMA 365, 378 (Kurt H. Nadelmann, Arthur T. von Mehren, & John N. Hazard, eds. 1961).
13. See supra text accompanying note 2.
14. Courts may, of course, apply laws of other countries in cases where infringement takes place partially or altogether outside the forum country. See, e.g., Judgment of May 23, 1990 (Hersocovici c. Société Karla et Société Krizia), Trib. grande instance (Paris), 146 RIDA 325 (1990) (French court, applying Italian copyright law to illicit copying in Italy and French law to sales of copies in France); London Film Prod. Ltd. v. Intercontinental Communications, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 47 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (U.S. court, contemplating application of local laws to infringement in Latin American countries).
15. See generally Paul Edward Geller, International Copyright: An Introduction, § 3[1][b][ii], in 1 INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE (Melville B. Nimmer & Paul Edward Geller, eds. 1996) [hereinafter INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE] (differentiating localization for purposes of injunctive remedies and of monetary awards).
16. DAVID F. CAVERS, THE CHOICE-OF-LAW PROCESS 136 (1965).
17. See Paul Edward Geller, The Universal Electronic Archive: Issues in International Copyright, 25 I.I.C. 54, 60 (1994).
18. Compare Prince Albert v. Strange, 64 ENG. REP. 293 (1849), aff'd, 41 ENG. REP. 1171 (1849) (with note) (enjoining the disclosure of privately made and held pictures, even in a catalog listing them) (U.K.) with Judgment of March 14, 1900 (the Whistler case), Cass. Civ., 1900/1 DALLOZ PÉRIODIQUE 497 (allowing artist, after having shown a portrait briefly, to withhold it from the party commissioning it) (Fr.).
19. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, art. 12, EUROP. T.S. no. 5; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, art. 17, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
20. Cf. Judgment of May 29, 1964 (the Personal Identification case), Bundesgerichtshof, 1965 GRUR 104, 106-108 (reasoning that a copyright claim may not form a basis for an obligation to identify users of copying devices used in private circles) (Ger.).
21. See generally Ejan Mackaay, The Economics of Emergent Property Rights on the Internet, in THE FUTURE OF COPYRIGHT IN A DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT 13, 16-22 (P. Bernt Hugenholtz, ed. 1996) [hereinafter FUTURE OF COPYRIGHT] (outlining theory of technological "fences" in networks).
22. But cf. BBC Enters. Ltd. v. Hi-Tech Xtravision Ltd., 9 R.P.C. 167, 183 (1992) (Ch. Div.) (considering privacy argument skeptically in obitur dictum), rev'd, id. at 183 (Court of Appeals), reversal aff'd, id. at 194 (House of Lords) (granting relief against commerce abroad in pirate decoders on statutory grounds).
23. Cf. WIPO Copyright Treaty, adopted Dec. 20, 1996, art. 11, WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/94 (Dec. 23, 1996) [hereinafter Copr. Treaty]; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted Dec. 20, 1996, art. 18, WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/95 (Dec. 23, 1996) [hereinafter Perf. and Phono. Treaty] (both requiring remedies against the unauthorized circumvention of technological measures such as encryption).
24. See, e.g., Judgment of Feb. 1, 1989 (Anne Bragance c. Michel de Grèce), Cour d'appel, 1re (Paris), 142 RIDA 301 (1989) (declining to apply French copyright-contract law to freely negotiated agreement to ghost-write book in U.S., with clause selecting U.S. law to govern its terms) (Fr.).
25. Cf. ANDRÉ LUCAS & HENRI-JACQUES LUCAS, TRAITÉ DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ LITTÉRAIRE ET ARTISTIQUE 426-29 (1994); Paul Katzenberger, Anwendungsbereich, in URHEBBERRECHT: KOMMENTAR 1207, 1254-55 (Gerhard Schricker, ed. 1987) (both considering the restrictive construction of copyright contracts as especially applicable to transfers by authors).
26. Cf. ANDRÉ LUCAS & HENRI-JACQUES LUCAS, TRAITÉ DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ LITTÉRAIRE ET ARTISTIQUE 426-29 (1994); Paul Katzenberger, Anwendungsbereich, in URHEBBERRECHT: KOMMENTAR 1207, 1254-55 (Gerhard Schricker, ed. 1987) (both considering the restrictive construction of copyright contracts as especially applicable to transfers by authors).
27. Cf. Copr. Treaty, supra note 22, art. 12; Perf. and Phono. Treaty, supra note 22, art. 19 (both requiring remedies against infringement-related removal or alteration of electronic information concerning, inter alia, "terms and conditions of use").
28. See Jerome H. Reichman, Electronic Information Tools - The Outer Edge of World Intellectual Property Law, 24 I.I.C. 446, 461-67 (1993).
29. Compare Paul Edward Geller, Toward an Overriding Norm in Copyright: Sign Wealth, 159 RIDA 2, 42-43 (1994) (proposing copyright criteria of enhancing the variety of, and access to, works) with Ejan Mackaay, An Economic View of Information Law, in INFORMATION LAW TOWARDS THE 21ST CENTURY 43, 56-58 (Willem F. Korthals Altes, Egbert J. Dommering, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, & Jan J.C. Kabel, eds. 1992) (proposing competition criteria of optimizing data flows).
30. Compare Paul Edward Geller, Toward an Overriding Norm in Copyright: Sign Wealth, 159 RIDA 2, 42-43 (1994) (proposing copyright criteria of enhancing the variety of, and access to, works) with Ejan Mackaay, An Economic View of Information Law, in INFORMATION LAW TOWARDS THE 21ST CENTURY 43, 56-58 (Willem F. Korthals Altes, Egbert J. Dommering, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, & Jan J.C. Kabel, eds. 1992) (proposing competition criteria of optimizing data flows).
31. Cf. Hanns Ullrich, TRIPS: Adequate Protection, Inadequate Trade, Adequate Competition Policy, 4 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 153, 196 (1995) (noting that courts choosing competition laws are "by no means bound to take intellectual property-based territorial divisions as sacrosanct").
32. See supra text accompanying notes 2, 11-13.
33. See Copr. Treaty, supra note 22, arts. 1, 8, 10; Perf. and Phono. Treaty, supra note 22, arts. 7, 10-11, 14-16. Cf. Agreed Statements Concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty, WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/96 (Dec. 23, 1996); Agreed Statements Concerning the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/97 (Dec. 23, 1996) (both attempting, albeit without complete success, to minimize vagaries in the flexibly interpretable communication right as well as in its relations with the reproduction right, while confirming that both rights are subject to open-ended limitations and exceptions).
34. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Paris Act of 1971, Preamble, S. TREATY Doc. No. 27, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1989), reprinted in 3 SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL UNIFORM LAW E325 (Konrad Zweigert & Jan Kropholler, eds. 1973).
35. See Commission of the European Community, GREEN PAPER ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, COM (95) 382 final, 19 July 1995, at 41-42.
36. Cf. François Dessemontet, Internet, le droit d'auteur et le droit international privé, 92 REV. SUISSE DE JURISPRUDENCE 285, 292 (1996) (proposing menu of laws applicable in general tort cases).
37. Cf. JEAN-SYLVESTRE BERGÉ, LA PROTECTION INTERNATIONALE ET COMMUNAUTAIRE DU DROIT D'AUTEUR: ESSAI D'UNE ANALYSE CONFLICTUELLE 252-268 (1996) (generally analyzing ordre public international relative to copyright).
38. See generally Jap H. Spoor, (Over)stretching the Reproduction Right, in FUTURE OF COPYRIGHT, supra note 20, at 67 (analyzing differences in control of hard copies and of data packets in networks).
39. See supra text accompanying notes 2, 11-13.
40. See Adolf Dietz, Germany, §§ 4[2][a], 7, and 8[1], in 1 INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE, supra note 14.
41. See André Lucas, France, §§ 7[1][c][ii] and 7[3], id.
42. See supra text accompanying notes 17-19.
43. BRUCE A. LEHMAN (CHAIR), INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE, REPORT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE 215 (1995).
44. See American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff'd, 60 F. 3d 913 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 116 S. Ct. 592 (1995) (prohibiting corporation from distributing copies of scientific journals internally for research use).
45. See generally P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Adapting Copyright to the Information Superhighway, in FUTURE OF COPYRIGHT, supra note 20, at 81 (analyzing consequences of different legal characterizations of copyright-relevant acts in digitally generated networks).
46. Cf. Paul Edward Geller, Reprography and other Processes of Mass Use, 38 J. COPR. SOC'Y 21, 35-36 (Fall 1990), reprinted in 153 RIDA 3, 33-37 (1992) (suggesting approaches to evaluating uses where privacy claims or data costs preclude per-use monitoring).
47. See Herman Cohen Jehoram, Netherlands, § 8[2][b][ii][B], in 2 INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE, supra note 14; François Dessemontet, Switzerland, § 8[2][a], id; David Nimmer, United States, § 8[2][a], id.
48. See Herman Cohen Jehoram, Netherlands, § 8[2][b][ii][B], in 2 INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE, supra note 14; François Dessemontet, Switzerland, § 8[2][a], id; David Nimmer, United States, § 8[2][a], id.
49. See Herman Cohen Jehoram, Netherlands, § 8[2][b][ii][B], in 2 INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE, supra note 14; François Dessemontet, Switzerland, § 8[2][a], id; David Nimmer, United States, § 8[2][a], id.
50. See Paul Edward Geller, Legal Transplants in International Copyright: Some Problems of Method, 13 UCLA PA. BASIN L.J. 199, 220-29 (1994).
51. WILLIAM BRIGGS, THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT 162 (1906).
52. Györy Boytha, Fragen der Entstehung des international Urheberrechts, in WOHER KOMMT DAS URHEBERRECHT UND WOHIN GEHT ES? 182 (Robert Dittrich, ed. 1988).