Notes

• [1]
  P. Cretois, ‘La propriété repensée par l’accès’, 2014/3 (t. XXVIII), Revue internationale de droit économique, p. 319-334, available at : https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-economique-2014-3-page-319.htm#no5.
• [2]
  For an analysis see : S. Bechtold, ‘Digital Rights Management in the United States and Europe’, vol. 52, No. 2, American Journal of Comparative Law, p. 323-382, 2004.
• [3]
  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 L 167, 22.6.2001, Art. 6, p. 10-19.
• [4]
  J. C. Ginsburg, ‘From Having Copies to Experiencing Works : The Development of an Access Right in U.S. Copyright Law’, vol. 50, Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, p. 113, 2003, available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ?abstract_id=222493; G. Lastowka, (2001), ‘Free Access and the Future of Copyright’, vol. 27, Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, p. 293.
• [5]
  G. Gomis, ‘Réflexions sur l’impact des mesures techniques de protection des œuvres’, No.162, Bulletin Lamy Droit de l’informatique et des réseaux, p. 8, 2003, available at : http://www.jurscom.net.
• [6]
  S. Dusollier, ‘Étude exploratoire sur le droit d’auteur et les droits connexes et le domaine public’, OMPI, 2010, available at : https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-development/fr/agenda/docs/scoping_study_cr.pdf.
• [7]
  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 L 167, 22/06/2001, p. 10-19.
• [8]
  P. Jougleux, ‘Access to Works Protected by Copyright Law’, in T. Synodinou, Pluralism or Universalism in International Copyright Law, Kluwer Law International, 2019, p. 641.
• [9]
  Case C-466/12, Nils Svensson et al. v. Retriever Sverige AB, [2014], ECLI:EU:C:2014:76 (LexNow Reference / ID 21453).
• [10]
  Case C-160/15, GS Media v. Sanoma Media Netherlands BV et al., [2016], ECLI:EU:C:2016:644 (LexNow Reference / ID 24939).
• [11]
  Case C-392/19 (LexNow Reference / ID 20210309140), VG Bild-Kunst v. Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, [2021], ECLI:EU:C:2021:181.
• [12]
  P. Jougleux, ‘Access to Works […]’, op. cit.
• [13]
  See, to that effect, Case C-753/18, Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim) and Svenska artisters och musikers intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI) v. Fleet manager Sweden AB and Nordisk Biluthyrning AB, [2020], EU:C:2020:268, § 32 and the case law cited (LexNow Reference / ID 20200708700), and Case C-637/19, BY v. CX (photographic evidence), [2020], EU:C:2020:863, § 23 (LexNow Reference / ID 20220221493).
• [14]
  See Case C-607/11, ITV Broadcasting Ltd., ITV 2 Ltd, and others v. TVCatchup Ltd, [2013], ECLI:EU:C:2013:147 (LexNow Reference / ID 28700).
• [15]
  Case C-306/05, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v. Rafael Hoteles SA., [2006], ECLI:EU:C:2006:764, § 40, 42 (LexNow Reference / ID 28698) ; Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd (FAPL) and Others v. QC Leisure and Others, and Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd, [2011], ECLI:EU:C:2011:631, § 197 (LexNow Reference / ID 23579) ; Case C-607/11, ITV Broadcasting Ltd., ITV 2 Ltd, and others v. TVCatchup Ltd, op. cit., § 38 (LexNow Reference / ID 28700).
• [16]
  See also Case C-301/15, Marc Soulier and Sara Doke v. Premier ministre et ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, [2016], ECLI:EU:C:2016:878, § 36 (LexNow Reference / ID P2B5E3D34).
• [17]
  Case C-466/12, Svensson, op.cit., § 31 (LexNow Reference / ID 21453).
• [18]
  Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v. Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch, [2014], ECLI:EU:C:2014:2315 (LexNow Reference / ID 22603).
• [19]
  Case C-392/19, VG Bild-Kunst v. Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, [2020], ECLI:EU:C:2021:181 (LexNow Reference / ID), Opinion of Advocate Genera (AG)l Maciej Szpunar, § 85 and 128; L. Oprysk, (2022), ‘How Much “New” Public Is Too Much ? The CJEU’s VG Bild-Kunst Judgment and Non-Exhaustive Control Over a Work’s Consumption’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 53, p. 1323–1342, available at : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-022-01243-1#Fn6.
• [20]
  P. Mezei and B. J. Jütte, ‘CJEU Clarifies that Framing Infringes Copyright if TPMs are Circumvented’, vol. 16, No. 6, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, p. 461-463, 2021, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812369.
• [21]
  § 46: ‘It must be made clear that, in order to ensure legal certainty and the smooth functioning of the Internet, the copyright holder cannot be allowed to limit his or her consent by means other than effective technological measures, within the meaning of Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/29 (see, in that regard, judgment of 23 January 2014, Case C-355/12 [LexNow Reference / ID 21306], Nintendo Co. Ltd et al. v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, [2014], EU:C:2014:25, § 24, 25 and 27). In the absence of such measures, it might prove difficult, particularly for individual users, to ascertain whether that right holder intended to oppose the framing of his or her works. To do so might prove even more difficult when that work is subject to sub-licences (see, by analogy, Case C-160/15 [LexNow Reference / ID 24939], GS Media BV v. Sanoma Media Netherlands BV et al., [2016], EU:C:2016:644, § 46)’.
• [22]
  T. Synodinou, ‘”Framing” the right of communication to the public : the CJEU’s decision on the VG Kunst case’, Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021, available at : https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/03/15/framing-the-rightof-communication-to-the-public-the-cjeus-decision-on-the-vg-kunst-case/ (12/4/2021).
• [23]
  G. Priora, (2021), ‘The CJEU’s take on unauthorised framing of online content : (only) if technologically precluded, then prohibited’, Media Laws, available at : https://www.medialaws.eu/the-cjeus-take-on-unauthorized-framing-of-online-content-only-if-technologically-precluded-then-prohibited/#_ftn27.
• [24]
  See European Visual Artists, (2021), ‘Statement on CJEU Ruling in case C-392/19, VG Bild-Kunst v. Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz’, available at : https://www.evartists.org/statement-on-cjeu-ruling-in-vg-bild-kunst-case/ (last accessed 1/2/2025) (LexNow Reference / ID 20210309140).
• [25]
  G. Priora, ‘The CJEU’s take’, op.cit. ; M. Schellekens, ‘Framing links and the prohibition of formalities’, Jipitec, 2021, available at : https://www.jipitec.eu/jipitec/article/view/335/328 ; E. Rosati, ‘Linking and Copyright in the Shade of VG Bild-Kunst’, vol. 58, No. 6, Common Market Law Review, p. 1875-1894, 2022, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3907820.
• [26]
  Pt 131.
• [27]
  M. Schellekens, ‘Framing links’, op. cit.
• [28]
  S. F. Schwemer, ‘Linking : Essential Functionality on the Internet and Neverending story ?’, in M. Rosenmeier et al., Festskrift til Jørgen Blomqvist, (Ex Tuto, 2021), p. 623–640, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3844548 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3844548.
• [29]
  M. Schellekens, ‘Framing links’, op. cit.
• [30]
  P. Jougleux, ‘Access to works’, op. cit.
• [31]
  Case C-527/15, Stichting Brein v. Jack Frederik Wullems, agissant également sous le nom Filmspeler, [2017], ECLI:EU:C:2017:300 (LexNow Reference / ID 25688).
• [32]
  Case C-610/15, Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV, [2017], ECLI:EU:C:2017:456 (LexNow Reference / ID 25820).
• [33]
  P. Jougleux, ‘Access to works’, op. cit.
• [34]
  Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (Text with EEA relevance), PE/51/2019/REV/1, OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, 92–125.
• [35]
  For an analysis, see : T. Synodinou, (2020), ‘Geoblocking in EU Copyright Law : Challenges and Perspectives’, vol. 69, No. 2, GRUR International, p. 136-150, available at : https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa001.
• [36]
  A. Kur and T. Dreier, European Intellectual Property Law : Text, Cases and Materials,dward Elgar, 2013, p. 13.
• [37]
  B. P. Hugenholtz and others, (2006), ‘The Recasting of Copyright & Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy’, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2012-44, p. 23, available at : https://ssrn.com/abstract¼2018238.
• [38]
  T. Synodinou, ‘Geoblocking in EU Copyright Law […]’, op. cit.
• [39]
  Commission Staff Working Document, ‘First Short-Term Review of the Geo-Blocking Regulation’, Brussels, 30.11.2020, SWD(2020) 294 final, PART 2/2, accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation {COM(2020) 766 final}, p. 68, available at : https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-publishes-its-short-term-review-geo-blocking-regulation
• [40]
  Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L 111, 5.5.2009.
• [41]
  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77, 27.3.1996.
• [42]
  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 L 167, 22.6.2001.
• [43]
  Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, OJ L 248, 6.10.1993.
• [44]
  Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No. 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, OJ L 60I, 2.3.2018.
• [45]
  Audio-visual services, including services whose main purpose is the provision of access to broadcasts of sports events, and which are provided on the basis of exclusive territorial licences, are explicitly excluded from the scope of the Regulation. See : Art. 3(1) and Recital 8 of the Regulation (EU) 2018/302. Furthermore, Art. 4 prohibits the application of different general conditions of access to the service on the basis of a customer’s nationality, residence or establishment—including the option of denying access to the service—does not apply to the provision of copyright-protected content services.
• [46]
  Case C-263/18, Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v. Tom Kabinet Internet BV et al., [2019], ECLI:EU:C:2019:1111 (LexNow Reference / ID 20201215762).
• [47]
  Case C-166/15, Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs v. Finanšu un ekonomisko noziegumu izmeklēšanas prokuratūra and Microsoft Corp., [2016], ECLI:EU:C:2016:762 (LexNow Reference / ID P247E35B7).
• [48]
  Case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp., [2012], ECLI:EU:C:2012:407 (LexNow Reference / ID 17899).
• [49]
  T. Synodinou, ‘Geo-blocking in EU Copyright Law’, op. cit.
• [50]
  Ibid.
• [51]
  S. Dusollier, ‘Incidences et réalités d’un droit de contrôler l’accès aux œuvres en droit européen’ in : Le droit d’auteur : un contrôle de l’accès aux œuvres ?, Bruylant, 2000, p. 25-52.
• [52]
  J. Ardalic, (2018), ‘Access to Digital Assets upon Death or Incapacity’, ACCAN, available at : https://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Currentprojects/Digital%20assets/Preliminary%20submissions/PDI10.pdf.
• [53]
  S. Dussolier, (2010), ‘Étude exploratoire sur le droit d’auteur et les droits connexes et le domaine public’, OMPI, available at : https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-development/fr/agenda/docs/scoping_study_cr.pdf.
• [54]
  For the history and the broader challenges of the EU regulation for outof-commerce works, see : M.-C. Janssens and R. Tryggvadótti, ‘Facilitating Access to Orphan and Out of Commerce Works to Make Europe’s Cultural Resources Available to the Broader Public’, 2014, available at : https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ?abstract_id=2538097.
• [55]
  Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works, OJ L 299, 27.10.2012.
• [56]
  Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Key Principles on the Digitisation and Making Available of Out-of-Commerce Works, MEMO/11/619, 20.09.2011.
• [57]
  Gesetz zur Nutzung verwaister und vergriffener Werke und einer weiteren Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes, 1 October 2013, available at : https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav ?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&bk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&start=//*%5b@attr_id=%27bgbl113s3728.pdf%27%5d#bgbl%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl113s3728.pdf%27%5D1564325324611.
• [58]
  Loi n° 2012-287 du 1^er mars 2012 relative à l’exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles du xx^e siècle, available at : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000025422700.
• [59]
  Case C-301/15, Marc Soulier and Sara Doke v. ministre de la Culture et de la Communication and Premier ministre, [2016], ECLI:EU:C:2016:878 (LexNow Reference / ID P2B5E3D34).
• [60]
  See Art. 3 § 1.
• [61]
  Directive (EU) 2019/790, op. cit., Recital 38.
• [62]
  Ibid., Recital 33.
• [63]
  Ibid., 40.
• [64]
  Ibid., Recital 48.
• [65]
  Case C-301/15, Marc Soulier, op. cit, § 38 (LexNow Reference / ID B5E3D34).
• [66]
  T. Synodinou, (2019), ‘The New Copyright Directive : Out of commerce works (Art. 8 to 11): Is it possible to untie the Gordian knot of mass digitisation and copyright law without cutting it off ? – Part II’, available at : https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/08/05/the-new-copyright-directive-out-of-commerce-works-articles-8-to-11-is-it-possible-to-untie-the-gordian-knot-of-mass-digitisation-and-copyright-law-without-cutting-it-off-part-ii/.
• [67]
  Ibid.
• [68]
  S. Dusollier, Y. Poullet and M. Buydens, ‘Copyright and access to information in the digital environment’, Vol. Vol. XXX/V, No. 4, Copyright Bulletin, 8, 2000, available at : https://unesdoc.unesco.org/in/documentViewer.xhtml ?v=2.1.196&id=p::usmarcdef_0000123894&file=/in/rest/annotationSVC/DownloadWatermarkedAttachment/attach_import_10f2a3b2-52a7-4a76-9481-2297a6e31aef%3F_%3D123894engo.pdf&locale=en&multi=true&ark=/ark:/48223/pf0000123894/PDF/123894engo.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A114%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C-218%2C975%2C0%5D.
• [69]
  S. Dusollier, (2011), « Étude exploratoire sur le droit d’auteur et les droits connexes et le domaine public », OMPI, p. 7, available at : https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-development/fr/agenda/docs/scoping_study_cr.pdf.
• [70]
  A. Reese, ‘Photographs of Public Domain Paintings : How, If at All, Should We Protect Them ?’, vol. 34, 2009, No. 4, The Journal of Corporation Law, p. 1035, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2070831.
• [71]
  G. Frosio, ‘Communia and the European Public Domain Project : A Politics of the Public Domain’, in: Melanie Dulong de Rosnay and Juan Carlos De Martin (ed.), The Digital Public Domain : Foundations for an Open Culture, (Open Book Publishers, 2012), p. 4-5.
• [72]
  Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, Article 1(1).
• [73]
  T. Margoni and M. Perry, (2011), ‘Scientific and Critical Editions of Public Domain Works : An Example of European Copyright Law (Dis)Harmonisation’, vol. 27, Canadian Intellectual Property Review, 157.
• [74]
  Directive 2006/116/EC, op. cit.
• [75]
  S. Dusollier, ‘Étude Exploratoire’, op. cit.
• [76]
  K. C. Butler, ‘Keeping the World Safe from Naked-Chicks-in-Art Refigerator Magnets : The Plot to Control Art Images in the Public Domain Through Copyrights in Photographic and Digital Reproductions’, vol. 21 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J., 1998, p. 55.
• [77]
  A. Giannopoulou, (2019), ‘The New Copyright Directive : Article 14 or when the Public Domain Enters the New Copyright Directive’, Wolters Kluwer, available at : https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/06/27/the-new-copyright-directive-article-14-or-when-the-public-domain-enters-thenew-copyright-directive/.
• [78]
  For an analysis, see : C. Butler, ‘Keeping the World Safe’, op. cit.
• [79]
  German Federal Court, 20 December 2018, No. I ZR 104/17 – Museumsfotos (REM IV(c)).
• [80]
  B. Beck and K. Von Werder, ‘Germany : German Federal Court Of Justice Confirms Copyright In Photographs Of Public Domain Paintings’, Mayer Brown, 2019, available at : https://www.mondaq.com/germany/copyright/793880/german-federal-court-of-justice-confirms-copyright-in-photographs-of-public-domain-paintings.
• [81]
  See G. Petri, ‘The Public Domain vs. the Museum : The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art’, vol. 12, No. 1, Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies, 2014, available at : http://doi.org/10.5334/jcms.1021217 (with reference to the dispute National Portrait Gallery (UK) v. Wikimedia Commons and the case Bridgeman v. Corel, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 [S.D.N.Y. 1999]).
• [82]
  Comment of the European Copyright Society on the Implementation of Art. 14 of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, available at : https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/ecs_cdsm_implementation_article_14_final.pdf.
• [83]
  G. Petri, ‘The Public Domain’, op. cit.