Protection of compilations in Spain and the UK

I I C

Volumn 29, Issue 8, 1998, Pages 907-919

  Gimeno, Luis ^a,b,c,d  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR INNOVATION AND COMPETITION   (Germany)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c Escuela Libre   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25844478045     PISSN: 00189855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of 12 April (BOE 22 April) that enacts the amended text of the Intellectual Property Law. The term "intellectual property" as used in Spain covers authors' rights and neighbouring rights. The term "copyright" will be used in this article, although there are important differences between the Spanish system and a common law copyright system.
2. Directive 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 on the Legal Protection of Databases, 27 IIC 821 (1996).
3. Spanish Act 5/1988 of 6 March implementing the Database Directive (BOE 7 March 1998). The UK Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (1997 SI, No. 3032).
4. C. y C. SA v. H. de JP SA, Supreme Court decision, 26 October 1992, 1992 Aranzadi 8286. GIMENO, "Copyright Subject-matter in Spain", 6 EIPR 352 (1996).
5. Supreme Court decision, 7 June 1995, Actualidad Civil, No. 35, October 1995, para. 883.
6. Article 4(2)(a), 1986 Spanish Patent Act, which is a direct translation into Spanish of Art. 52(2)(a) EPC.
7. WIPO translation. The list that follows is non-exhaustive. Creations have to be expressed in a tangible or intangible medium, but there is not a fixation requirement.
8. For example, VICENT CHULIÁ, "Compendio crítico de derecho mercantil" 1283-1285 (3rd ed., Part 1, Vol. 2).
9. STROWEL, "Droit d'auteur et copyright. Divergences et convergences. Etude de droit comparé" 470-477 (LGDJ, Paris 1993), who speaks of the notion of originality as being of variable geometry, an expression taken from the decision of the French Supreme Court in the Pachot case.
10. For a criticism of this approach see LUCAS & LUCAS, "Propriété Littéraire et Artistique", para. 94 (Litec, Paris 1995).
11. STRÖMHOLM, "Was bleibt vom Erbe übrig? Überlegungen zur Entwicklung des heutigen Urheberrechts", 1989 GRUR Int. 15.
12. Also, recently STRÖMHOLM, "Spielraum, Originalität oder Persönlichkeit? Das Urheberrecht vor einer Wegwahl", in "Festschrift für F.K. Beier zum 70. Geburtstag", 1996 GRUR Int. 529.
13. Furthermore, Art. 96(2) of the 1996 amended Act provides: "the computer program will only be protected if it is original, in the sense of being the author's own intellectual creation", implementing the Computer Programs Directive. See BOTANA AGRA, "Las incorporaciones del texto refundido del Ley de Propiedad Intelectual en materia de derechos de autor", 17 Actas de Derecho Industrial 86-87 (1996).
14. WIPO translation.
15. FERNÁNDEZ-NÓVOA, "La colección como obra protegida por la propiedad intelectual", in "Estudios homenaje a Baylos" 344-345 (AIPPI, Barcelona 1992).
16. Cf. with Art. 2(5) Berne Convention. See also ESTEVE PARDO, "La obra multimedia en la legislación española", 1997 Aranzadi 40 et seq., as to the application of the concept of compilation to multimedia works.
17. FERNÁNDEZ-NÓVOA, supra note 13, at 345-347, argues that the requirement in the case of compilations will be similar to that of the US case, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc., 18 USPQ 1275.
18. See Art. 10(2) TRIPS and Art. 3(1) Database Directive. See BOUZA LÓPEZ, "La protección jurídica de las bases de datos: Nuevos desarrollos", 17 Actas de Derecho Industrial 1071.
19. Stricter requirements, such as a higher level of creativity, have been abandoned in relation to this type of work in Germany according to SCHRICKER, "Farewell to the 'Level of Creativity' (Schöpfungshöhe) in German Copyright Law?", 26 IIC 41, 43 (1995). See, nevertheless, the decision on advertising materials of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals, 21 January 1997, 1998 ZUM 65, expressly rejecting that the level of creativity has been abandoned.
20. See note 4.
21. As in the English case, Kenrich v. Lawrence, 25 QBD 99 (1890).
22. Article 20(1(b) of the 1978 Spanish Constitution: "The following rights are recognised and protected: (1)(b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation" construed in accordance with Art. 27(1) and (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See OTERO LASTRES, "La protección constitutional del derecho de autor: Análisis del artículo 20.1 b/ de la Constitución española de 1978", 1986 La Ley, Part 2, 370.
23. Author's translation.
24. Compare with Sec. 102(b) of the 1976 US Copyright Act that was the basis for the development of the merger and scènes à faire doctrines in the US.
25. ALAI, "The protection of ideas" (Workshop, Sitges, 4/7 October, 1992).
26. COLOMBET, "Grands principes du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins dans le monde. Approche de droit comparé" 10-11 (2nd ed., Litec, Paris 1992).
27. Spanish law distinguishes between a reproduction right, Art. 18 of the Act, and an adaptation right, Art. 21 of the Act.
28. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121.
29. Supreme Court decision, 20 February 1992, 1992 Aranzadi 1328, 7 EIPR D-208 (1995).
30. Supreme Court decision, 28 January 1995, Revista General del Derecho, April 1995, 3439, 11 EIPR D-318 (1995).
31. This solution had already been proposed by commentators in relation to architectural works. See R. BERCOVITZ, in R. BERCOVITZ (ed.), "Comentarios a la ley de propiedad intelectual" 236 (Tecnos, Madrid 1989).
32. It is submitted that infringing works may be creative.
33. V SA v. X SA, Supreme Court decision, 30 January 1996, Actualidad Civil, No. 15, 8-15 April 1996, No. 303.
34. In Spain, the novelty requirement of utility models is national, not international; that is, the requirement means that the models have to be new in Spain, even if they might be already known abroad. This low requirement is criticised by commentators, i.e. AREÁN LALÍN, "Modelo de utilidad, libertad de empresa y libre circulación de mercancias en la Union Europea", Cuadernos de Jurisprudencia de Propiedad Industrial 15, 51-62.
35. GINSBURG, "Creation and commercial value: Copyright Protection of Works of Information in the US", in DOMMERING & HUGENHOLTZ (ed.), "Protecting works of fact" 52 (Kluwer, 1991).
36. R. BERCOVITZ, "Comentario a la sentencia de 7 de junio de 1995", Cuadernos Civitas de Jurisprudencia Civil, September/December 95, at 1117.
37. Anything outside literal copying will have a great chance of either taking only unprotected elements or, given even merely slight variations, being dissimilar to the first work: DREIER & KARNELL, "Originality of the copyrighted work: A European perspective", 39 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 289, 301 (1991-1992). See also STRÖMHOLM, 1989 GRUR Int. 21.
38. Article 5 of the Database Directive: "In respect of the expression of the database which is protectable by copyright, the author of a database shall have the exclusive right to carry out or to authorize:...". Emphasis added.
39. University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. [1916] 2 Ch. 601.
40. It should be noted that the concept of work in the CDPA treats authors' rights and neighbouring rights on the same basis: CORNISH, "Recent Changes in British Copyright Law", RIDA, April 97, at 155.
41. LADDIE, "Copyright: Overstrength, over-regulated, over-rated?", 5 EIPR 257 (1996).
42. For a particularly clear account of this development, see MACQUEEN, "Copyright, Competition and Industrial Design", Chapters 2 and 3 (2nd ed., Edinburgh University Press, 1995).
43. RICKETSON, "The concept of originality in Anglo-Australian copyright law", 39 Journal of the Copyright Society of the US 266 (1991-1992).
44. 1979 FSR 46. It should be noted that it was an interlocutory decision and the result might have been different in a full trial of the case.
45. See comment by DWORKIN, "Elanco Products - the idea-expression dichotomy", 1979 EIPR, 117, 119.
46. PHILLIPS & FIRTH, "Introduction to Intellectual Property Law", paras. 10.7 and 10.8 (3rd ed., Butterworths, 1995).
47. For example, Express Newspapers Plc. v. Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Plc, 1985 FSR 306, where copyright protection was given to a sequence of letters as literary works.
48. In Spain, the scope of the slavish imitation provision is controversial. For a striking example see decision of the Barcelona Appeal Court, 5 July 1993, 2 EIPR D-49 (1996).
49. The need for a moderate construction of the provision is underlined by GÓMEZ SEGADE, "Concepto y protección de la presentación comercial (Trade dress): Debe seguirse el ejemplo USA en el caso Taco Cabana?", 14 CJPI 35.
50. In that comment on the US case, Taco Cabana, Prof. Gómez Segade concludes that such broad protection should not be granted in Spain. See OTERO LASTRES, "Aproximación a la figura de la imitación servil", 10 Actas de Derecho Industrial 61-78.
51. For a case where imitation was avoidable see GIMENO, "Trade mark infringement and slavish imitation in Spain: Procter & Gamble v. Fenix Química SA", 8 EIPR 464 (1996).
52. For a case where imitation was unavoidable see GIMENO, "Spare Parts in Spain and from a European Perspective: Ford Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Construcciones Metálicas Arregui", 9 EIPR 537 (1997).
53. See LAHORE, "Designs and Petty Patents: A Broader Reform Issue", 7 Austr. Intell. Prop. Journal 16.
54. Article 7 of the Database Directive. What is substantial investment and what is substantial appropriation will certainly be a subject of debate for years to come.
55. See FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR, "Los derechos afines a los derechos de autor en el Texto Refundido del Ley de Propiedad Intelectual", 17 Actas de Derecho Industrial 105.
56. Article 5 of the Implementation Act. As to the use of the term "intellectual property" in Spanish law, see supra note 1.
57. 1994 FSR 275.
58. See the criticism of the idea/expression dichotomy in LADDIE, PRESCOTT & VITORIA, "The modern law of copyright and designs" 61 (2nd ed., 1995).
59. For another view, see CORNISH, "Intellectual Property" 362-363 (3rd ed., Sweet & Maxwell, 1996).
60. See STERLING, "Testing for subsistence and infringement of copyright in computer programs: Some US and UK cases", 11 CLSR 119-126 (1995).
61. Copyright and the challenge of technology, 1988 COM (88) 172 final. Paras. 1.3.5-6.
62. See supra the Spanish implementing provision.
63. COM (96) 66 final, COD 464.
64. KARNELL, "Protection of Results of Genetic Research by Copyright or Design Rights?", 8 EIPR 355, 357 (1995).
65. KARNELL, "Protection of Results of Genetic Research by Copyright or Design Rights?", 8 EIPR 355, 357 (1995) Id.
66. 1994 FSR 359; compare with ETAL v. Critchley, 1997 FSR 401 (per Laddie J).
67. Notwithstanding the application of Sec. 51 of the 1988 UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act which limits the application of copyright in relation to industrial designs.
68. For distinctions on scope between copyright and patents, see PHILLIPS & FIRTH, "Introduction to Intellectual Property Law" 12-16 (3rd ed., Butterworths, 1995).
69. 1995 FSR 530.
70. CORNISH, supra note 52, at 660.