CopyrightX: Bocconi University

  • lillà montagnani (Bocconi University)
  • Prof. William T. Fisher III

The purpose of the course at Bocconi University - Affiliate of Harvard CopyrightX - is to acquire a complete understanding of both European copyright law and North American system so to grasp the differences between the civil law tradition (droit d’auteur) and the common law tradition (copyright). The aim is to provide students with a critical analysis of US copyright law, starting from the theories underpinning its rules to the mechanisms that are typical of this jurisdiction, always maintaining the parallelism with EU copyright discipline. Each of the 12 weeks of the course counts two sessions: (1) a lecture; and (2) a seminar where US and EU decisions related to the topic of the lecture will be discussed, tryng to figure out a comparison, where possible.Then, the materials mainly include US and European case law.For students: please check the syllabus on a reguarly basis: it is a work in progress and it will be costantly updated, also as a consequence of the discussions carried out in the previous sessions.

7 The rights to reproduce and modify - Week 7 7 The rights to reproduce and modify - Week 7

Discussion: The level of similarity

7.1 Three Boys Music Corp. v. Michael Bolton 7.1 Three Boys Music Corp. v. Michael Bolton

212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000)

THREE BOYS MUSIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BOLTON, individually and d/b/a MR. BOLTON'S MUSIC, INC.; ANDREW GOLDMARK; NON-PAREIL MUSIC, INC.; WARNER-CHAPPELL MUSIC LIMITED; WARNER TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.; WB MUSIC CORP.; and SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 97-55150, 97-55154

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Argued and Submitted October 5, 1999
Filed May 9, 2000

[480] COUNSEL: Robert G. Sugarman, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York, New York, for the defendants-appellants.

Russell J. Frackman, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, Los Angeles, California, for the defendant-appellant.

Pierce O'Donnell, O'Donnell & Shaeffer, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.

John P. McNicholas, McNicholas & McNicholas, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Louis Petrich, Leopold, Petrich, & Smith, Los Angeles, California, for amici, Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. and Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Lourdes G. Baird, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-92-01177 LGB

Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Dorothy W. Nelson, and Melvin Brunetti, Circuit

Judges.

OPINION

D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

In 1994, a jury found that Michael Bolton's 1991 pop hit, "Love Is a Wonderful Thing," infringed on the copyright of a 1964 Isley Brothers' song of the same name. The district court denied Bolton's motion for a new trial and affirmed the jury's award of $5.4 million.

Bolton, his co-author, Andrew Goldmark, and their record companies ("Sony Music") appeal, arguing that the district court erred in finding that: (1) sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the appellants had access to the Isley Brothers' song; (2) sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the songs were substantially similar; (3) subject matter jurisdiction existed based on the Isley Brothers registering a complete copy of the song; (4) sufficient evidence supported the jury's attribution of profits to the infringing elements of the song; (5) Sony Music could not deduct its tax liability; and (6) the appellants' motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was unwarranted.

We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The Isley Brothers, one of this country's most well-known rhythm and blues groups, have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. They helped define the soul sound of the 1960s with songs such as "Shout," "Twist and Shout," and "This Old Heart of Mine," and they mastered the funky beats of the 1970s with songs such as "Who's That Lady, " "Fight the Power," and "It's Your Thing." In 1964, the Isley Brothers wrote and recorded "Love is a Wonderful Thing " for United Artists. The Isley Brothers received a copyright for "Love is a Wonderful Thing" from the Register of Copyrights on February 6, 1964. The following year, they switched to the famous Motown label and had three top-100 hits including "This Old Heart of Mine."

Hoping to benefit from the Isley Brothers' Motown success, United Artists released "Love is a Wonderful Thing" in 1966. The song was not released on an album, only on a 45record as a single. Several industry publications predicted that "Love is a Wonderful Thing" would be a hit -"Cash Box" on August 27, 1966, "Gavin Report" on August 26, 1966, and "Billboard" on September 10, 1966. On September 17, 1966, Billboard listed "Love is a Wonderful Thing" at number 110 in a chart titled "Bubbling Under the Hot 100. " The song was never listed on any other Top 100 charts. In 1991, the Isley Brothers' "Love is a Wonderful Thing" was released [481] on compact disc. See Isley Brothers, The Isley Brothers -The Complete UA Sessions, (EMI 1991).

Michael Bolton is a singer/songwriter who gained popularity in the late 1980s and early 1990s by reviving the soul sound of the 1960s. Bolton has orchestrated this soul-music revival in part by covering old songs such as Percy Sledge's "When a Man Love a Woman" and Otis Redding's"(Sittin' on the) Dock of the Bay." Bolton also has written his own hit songs. In early 1990, Bolton and Goldmark wrote a song called "Love Is a Wonderful Thing." Bolton released it as a single in April 1991, and as part of Bolton's album,"Time, Love and Tenderness." Bolton's "Love Is a Wonderful Thing" finished 1991 at number 49 on Billboard's year-end pop chart.

On February 24, 1992, Three Boys Music Corporation filed a copyright infringement action for damages against the appellants under 17 U.S.C. SS 101 et seq. (1988). The parties agreed to a trifurcated trial. On April 25, 1994, in the first phase, the jury determined that the appellants had infringed the Isley Brothers' copyright. At the end of second phase five days later, the jury decided that Bolton's "Love Is a Wonderful Thing" accounted for 28 percent of the profits from "Time, Love and Tenderness." The jury also found that 66 percent of the profits from commercial uses of the song could be attributed to the inclusion of infringing elements. On May 9, 1994, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Isley Brothers based on the first two phases.

The deadline for post-trial motions was May 25, 1994. On that day, the appellants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for new trial. The district court denied the motions on August 11, 1994. On June 8, 1994, the appellants filed a second motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence on the issue of copyright ownership. The district court dismissed this motion as untimely.

On December 5, 1996, the district court adopted the findings of the Special Master's Amended Report about the allocation of damages (third phase). In the final judgment entered against the appellants, the district court ordered Sony Music to pay $4,218,838; Bolton to pay $932,924; Goldmark to pay $220,785; and their music publishing companies to pay $75,900. They timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

Proof of copyright infringement is often highly circumstantial, particularly in cases involving music. A copyright plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of the copyright; and (2) infringement -that the defendant copied protected elements of the plaintiff's work. See Smith v. Jackson , 84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Absent direct evidence of copying, proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that the defendant had "access" to the plaintiff's work and that the two works are "substantially similar." Id.

Given the difficulty of proving access and substantial similarity, appellate courts have been reluctant to reverse jury verdicts in music cases. See, e.g., id. at 1221 (affirming a jury's verdict for the defendants in a copyright infringement case involving Michael Jackson and other musicians); Gaste v. Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061, 1071 (2d Cir. 1988) (affirming a jury's damages award against a defendant in a music copyright infringement case). Judge Newman's opinion in Gaste nicely articulated the proper role for an appeals court in reviewing a jury verdict:

The guiding principle in deciding whether to overturn a jury verdict for insufficiency of the evidence is whether the evidence is such that, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise considering the weight of the evidence, there can be but one conclusion as to the verdict that reasonable men could have reached.

Id. at 1066 (internal quotations omitted). In Arnstein v. Porter, the seminal case [482] about musical copyright infringement, Judge Jerome Frank wrote:

Each of these two issues - copying and improper appropriation - is an issue of fact. If there is a trial, the conclusions on those issues of the trier of the facts - of the judge if he sat without a jury, or of the jury if there was a jury trial - bind this court on appeal, provided the evidence supports those findings, regardless of whether we would ourselves have reached the same conclusions.

Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir. 1946).

As a general matter, the standard for reviewing jury verdicts is whether they are supported by "substantial evidence" -that is, such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Poppell v. City of San Diego, 149 F.3d 951, 962 (9th Cir. 1998). The credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and is generally not subject to appellate review. See Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 614 (1999).

We affirm the jury's verdict in this case in light of the standard of review and copyright law's "guiding principles." Although we will address each of the appellant's arguments in turn, we focus on access because it is the most difficult issue in this case. Our decision is predicated on judicial deference -finding that the law has been properly applied in this case, viewing the facts most favorably to the appellees, and not substituting our judgment for that of the jury.

A. Access

Proof of access requires "an opportunity to view or to copy plaintiff's work." Sid and Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1172 (9th Cir. 1977). This is often described as providing a "reasonable opportunity" or "reasonable possibility" of viewing the plaintiff's work. 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, S 13.02[A], at 13-19 (1999); Jason v. Fonda, 526 F. Supp. 774, 775 (C.D. Cal. 1981), aff'd , 698 F.2d 966 (9th Cir. 1983). We have defined reasonable access as "more than a `bare possibility.' " Jason, 698 F.2d at 967. Nimmer has elaborated on our definition: "Of course, reasonable opportunity as here used, does not encompass any bare possibility in the sense that anything is possible. Access may not be inferred through mere speculation or conjecture. There must be a reasonable possibility of viewing the plaintiff's work -not a bare possibility." 4 Nimmer,S 13.02[A], at 1319. "At times, distinguishing a `bare' possibility from a `reasonable' possibility will present a close question. " Id. at 1320.

Circumstantial evidence of reasonable access is proven in one of two ways: (1) a particular chain of events is established between the plaintiff's work and the defendant's access to that work (such as through dealings with a publisher or record company), or (2) the plaintiff's work has been widely disseminated. See 4 Nimmer, S 13.02[A], at 13-20-13-21; 2 Paul Goldstein, Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice S 8.3.1.1., at 90-91 (1989). Goldstein remarks that in music cases the "typically more successful route to proving access requires the plaintiff to show that its work was widely disseminated through sales of sheet music, records, and radio performances." 2 Goldstein, S 8.3.1.1, at 91. Nimmer, however, cautioned that "[c]oncrete cases will pose difficult judgments as to where along the access spectrum a given exploitation falls." 4 Nimmer, S 13.02[A], at 13-22.

Proof of widespread dissemination is sometimes accompanied by a theory that copyright infringement of a popular song was subconscious. Subconscious copying has been accepted since Learned Hand embraced it in a 1924 music infringement case: "Everything registers somewhere in our memories, and no one can tell what [483] may evoke it . . . . Once it appears that another has in fact used the copyright as the source of this production, he has invaded the author's rights. It is no excuse that in so doing his memory has played him a trick." Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham, 298 F. 145, 147-48 (S.D.N.Y. 1924). In Fred Fisher, Judge Hand found that the similarities between the songs "amount[ed] to identity" and that the infringement had occurred "probably unconsciously, what he had certainly often heard only a short time before." Id. at 147.

In modern cases, however, the theory of subconscious copying has been applied to songs that are more remote in time. ABKCO Music, Inc v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 722 F.2d 988 (2d Cir. 1983) is the most prominent example. In ABKCO, the Second Circuit affirmed a jury's verdict that former Beatle George Harrison, in writing the song "My Sweet Lord," subconsciously copied The Chiffons' "He's So Fine," which was released six years earlier. See id. at 997, 999. Harrison admitted hearing "He's So Fine" in 1963, when it was number one on the Billboard charts in the United States for five weeks and one of the top 30 hits in England for seven weeks. See id. at 998. The court found:"the evidence, standing alone, `by no means compels the conclusion that there was access . . . it does not compel the conclusion that there was not.' " Id. (quoting Heim v. Universal Pictures Co., 154 F.2d 480, 487 (2d Cir. 1946)). In ABKCO, however, the court found that "the similarity was so striking and where access was found, the remoteness of that access provides no basis for reversal." Id. Furthermore, "the mere lapse of a considerable period of time between the moment of access and the creation of defendant's work does not preclude a finding of copying." 4 Nimmer, S 13.02[A], at 13-20 (citing ABKCO, 722 F.2d at 997-98).

The Isley Brothers' access argument was based on a theory of widespread dissemination and subconscious copying. They presented evidence supporting four principal ways that Bolton and Goldmark could have had access to the Isley Brothers' "Love is a Wonderful Thing":

(1) Bolton grew up listening to groups such as the Isley Brothers and singing their songs. In 1966, Bolton and Goldmark were 13 and 15, respectively, growing up in Connecticut. Bolton testified that he had been listening to rhythm and blues music by black singers since he was 10 or 11,"appreciated a lot of Black singers," and as a youth was the lead singer in a band that performed "covers" of popular songs by black singers. Bolton also testified that his brother had a "pretty good record collection."

(2) Three disk jockeys testified that the Isley Brothers' song was widely disseminated on radio and television stations where Bolton and Goldmark grew up. First, Jerry Blavitt testified that the Isley Brothers' "Love is a Wonderful Thing" was played five or six times during a 13-week period on the television show, "The Discophonic Scene," which he said aired in Philadelphia, New York, and Hartford-New Haven. Blavitt also testified that he played the song two to three times a week as a disk jockey in Philadelphia and that the station is still playing the song today. Second, Earl Rodney Jones testified that he played the song a minimum of four times a day during an eight to 14 to 24 week period on WVON radio in Chicago, and that the station is still playing the song today. Finally, Jerry Bledsoe testified that he played the song on WUFO radio in Buffalo, and WWRL radio in New York was playing the song in New York in 1967 when he went there. Bledsoe also testified that he played the song twice on a television show, "Soul," which aired in New York and probably in New Haven, Connecticut, where Bolton lived.

(3) Bolton confessed to being a huge fan of the Isley Brothers and a collector of their music. Ronald Isley testified that when Bolton saw Isley at the Lou Rawls United Negro College Fund Benefit concert in 1988, Bolton said,"I know this guy.[484] I go back with him. I have all his stuff. " Angela Winbush, Isley's wife, testified about that meeting that Bolton said, "This man needs no introduction. I know everything he's done."

(4) Bolton wondered if he and Goldmark were copying a song by another famous soul singer. Bolton produced a work tape attempting to show that he and Goldmark independently created their version of "Love Is a Wonderful Thing." On that tape of their recording session, Bolton asked Goldmark if the song they were composing was Marvin Gaye's "Some Kind of Wonderful."[1] The district court, in affirming the jury's verdict, wrote about Bolton's Marvin Gaye remark:

This statement suggests that Bolton was contemplating the possibility that the work he and Goldmark were creating, or at least a portion of it, belonged to someone else, but that Bolton wasn't sure who it belonged to. A reasonable jury can infer that Bolton mistakenly attributed the work to Marvin Gaye, when in reality Bolton was subconsciously drawing on Plaintiff's song.

The appellants contend that the Isley Brothers' theory of access amounts to a "twenty-five-years-after-the-factsubconscious copying claim." Indeed, this is a more attenuated case of reasonable access and subconscious copying than ABKCO. In this case, the appellants never admitted hearing the Isley Brothers' "Love is a Wonderful Thing. " That song never topped the Billboard charts or even made the top 100 for a single week. The song was not released on an album or compact disc until 1991, a year after Bolton and Goldmark wrote their song. Nor did the Isley Brothers ever claim that Bolton's and Goldmark's song is so "strikingly similar" to the Isley Brothers' that proof of access is presumed and need not be proven.

Despite the weaknesses of the Isley Brothers' theory of reasonable access, the appellants had a full opportunity to present their case to the jury. Three rhythm and blues experts (including legendary Motown songwriter Lamont Dozier of Holland-Dozier-Holland fame) testified that they never heard of the Isley Brothers' "Love is a Wonderful Thing." Furthermore, Bolton produced copies of "TV Guide" from 1966 suggesting that the television shows playing the song never aired in Connecticut. Bolton also pointed out that 129 songs called "Love is a Wonderful Thing" are registered with the Copyright Office, 85 of them before 1964.

The Isley Brothers' reasonable access arguments are not without merit. Teenagers are generally avid music listeners. It is entirely plausible that two Connecticut teenagers obsessed with rhythm and blues music could remember an Isley Brothers' song that was played on the radio and television for a few weeks, and subconsciously copy it twenty years later. Furthermore, Ronald Isley testified that when they met, Bolton said, "I have all his stuff." Finally, as the district court pointed out, Bolton's remark about Marvin Gaye and "Some Kind of Wonderful" indicates that Bolton believed he may have been copying someone else's song.

Finally, with regard to access, we are mindful of Judge Frank's words of caution in Arnstein v. Porter: "The judge characterized plaintiff's story as `fantastic'; and in the light of the references in his opinion to defendant's deposition, the judge obviously accepted the defendant's denial of access and copying . . . . [Y]et plaintiff's credibility, even as to those improbabilities, should be left to the jury." Arnstein, 154 F.2d at 469. In this case, Judge Baird heeded Judge Frank's admonition:

[T]his Court is not in a position to find that the only conclusion that a reasonable jury could have reached is that [485] Defendants did not have access to Plaintiff's song. One must remember that the issue this Court must address is not whether Plaintiff has proven access by a preponderance of evidence, but whether reasonable minds could find that Defendants had a reasonable opportunity to have heard Plaintiff's song before they created their own song.

Although we might not reach the same conclusion as the jury regarding access, we find that the jury's conclusion about access is supported by substantial evidence. We are not establishing a new standard for access in copyright cases; we are merely saying that we will not disturb the jury's factual and credibility determinations on this issue.

B. Substantial Similarity

Under our case law, substantial similarity is inextricably linked to the issue of access. In what is known as the "inverse ratio rule," we "require a lower standard of proof of substantial similarity when a high degree of access is shown." Smith, 84 F.3d at 1218 (citing Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1361-62 (9th Cir. 1990); Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1172). Furthermore, in the absence of any proof of access, a copyright plaintiff can still make out a case of infringement by showing that the songs were "strikingly similar." See Smith, 84 F.3d at 1220; Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423, 424 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987).

Proof of the substantial similarity is satisfied by a twopart test of extrinsic similarity and intrinsic similarity. See Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164. Initially, the extrinsic test requires that the plaintiff identify concrete elements based on objective criteria. See Smith, 84 F.3d at 1218; Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1356. The extrinsic test often requires analytical dissection of a work and expert testimony. See Apple Computer, Inc v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994). Once the extrinsic test is satisfied, the factfinder applies the intrinsic test. The intrinsic test is subjective and asks "whether the ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar." Pasillas v. McDonald's Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations omitted).

We will not second-guess the jury's application of the intrinsic test. See Krofft 562 F.3d at 1166 ("Since the intrinsic test for expression is uniquely suited for determination by the trier of fact, this court must be reluctant to reverse it.") (citations omitted). Furthermore, we will not reverse factual determinations regarding the extrinsic test absent a clearly erroneous application of the law. See id. It is well settled that a jury may find a combination of unprotectible elements to be protectible under the extrinsic test because " `the over-all impact and effect indicate substantial appropriation.' " Id. at 1169 (quoting Malkin v. Dubinsky, 146 F. Supp. 111, 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1956)).

1. Evidence of Substantial Similarity

Bolton and Goldmark argue that there was insufficient evidence of substantial similarity because the Isley Brothers' expert musicologist, Dr. Gerald Eskelin, failed to show that there was copying of a combination of unprotectible elements. On the contrary, Eskelin testified that the two songs shared a combination of five unprotectible elements: (1) the title hook phrase (including the lyric, rhythm, and pitch); (2) the shifted cadence; (3) the instrumental figures; (4) the verse/chorus relationship; and (5) the fade ending. Although the appellants presented testimony from their own expert musicologist, Anthony Ricigliano, he conceded that there were similarities between the two songs and that he had not found the combination of unprotectible elements in the Isley Brothers' song "anywhere in the prior art." The jury heard testimony from both of these experts and "found infringement based on a unique compilation of those elements." We refuse to interfere with the jury's credibility determination, nor do we find [486] that the jury's finding of substantial similarity was clearly erroneous.

2. Independent Creation

Bolton and Goldmark also contend that their witnesses rebutted the Isley Brothers' prima facie case of copyright infringement with evidence of independent creation. By establishing reasonable access and substantial similarity, a copyright plaintiff creates a presumption of copying. The burden shifts to the defendant to rebut that presumption through proof of independent creation. See Granite Music Corp. v. United Artists Corp., 532 F.2d 718, 721 (9th Cir. 1976).

The appellants' case of independent creation hinges on three factors: the work tape demonstrating how Bolton and Goldmark created their song, Bolton and Goldmark's history of songwriting, and testimony that their arranger, Walter Afanasieff, contributed two of five unprotectible elements that they allegedly copied. The jury, however, heard the testimony of Bolton, Goldmark, Afanasieff, and Ricigliano about independent creation. The work tape revealed evidence that Bolton may have subconsciously copied a song that he believed to be written by Marvin Gaye. Bolton and Goldmark's history of songwriting presents no direct evidence about this case. And Afanasieff's contributions to Bolton and Goldmark's song were described by the appellants' own expert as "very common." Once again, we refuse to disturb the jury's determination about independent creation. The substantial evidence of copying based on access and substantial similarity was such that a reasonable juror could reject this defense.

3. Inverse-Ratio Rule

Although this may be a weak case of access and a circumstantial case of substantial similarity, neither issue warrants reversal of the jury's verdict. An amicus brief on behalf of the recording and motion picture industries warns against watering down the requirements for musical copyright infringement. This case presents no such danger. The Ninth Circuit's inverse-ratio rule requires a lesser showing of substantial similarity if there is a strong showing of access. See Smith, 84 F.3d at 1218. In this case, there was a weak showing of access. We have never held, however, that the inverse ratio rule says a weak showing of access requires a stronger showing of substantial similarity. Nor are we redefining the test of substantial similarity here; we merely find that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could find access and substantial similarity in this case.

C. Sufficiency of the Deposit Copy

The appellants argue that the district court did not have jurisdiction over this case because the Isley Brothers failed to register a complete copy of the song upon which the lawsuit was based. Although the 1909 Copyright Act requires the owner to deposit a "complete copy" of the work with the copyright office, our definition of a "complete copy" is broad and deferential: "Absent intent to defraud and prejudice, inaccuracies in copyright registrations do not bar actions for infringement." Harris v. Emus Records Corp. , 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).

Bolton and Goldmark argue that in 1964 the Isley Brothers deposited sheet music ("deposit copy") of "Love is a Wonderful Thing" that differed from the recorded version of the song. Furthermore, they claimed that the deposit copy does not include the majority of the musical elements that were part of the infringement claim. At trial, the Isley Brothers' expert, Dr. Eskelin, testified that the deposit copy included all of the song's essential elements such as the title hook, chorus, and pitches. Dr. Eskelin even played the deposit copy for the jury on the keyboard. We refuse to disturb the jury's finding that the Isley Brothers deposited a "complete copy " because (1) there was no intent to defraud and prejudice and (2) any inaccuracies [487] in the deposit copy were minor and do not bar the infringement action.

D. Attribution of Profits

Sony Music claims that the district court improperly applied an assumption that all profits from Bolton and Goldmark's song go to the Isley Brothers, and that no evidence supported the jury's apportionment of profits. A successful copyright plaintiff is allowed to recover only those profits that are "attributable to infringement." 17 U.S.C.S 504(b) (1994). "In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work." Id. See also Cream Records, Inc. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 754 F.2d 826, 828 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that when all profits do not clearly derive from the infringing material, the copyright owner is not entitled to recover all of the profits); Gaste , 863 F.2d at 1070 (finding that where there is "imprecision in the computation of expenses, a court should err on the side of guaranteeing the plaintiff a full recovery"). Thus, the statutory burden of proof lies with Sony Music to prove what percentage of their profits were not attributable to copying the Isley Brothers'"Love is a Wonderful Thing."

Sony Music presented evidence that Bolton's "Love Is a Wonderful Thing" produced only 5-10% of the profits from his album, "Time, Love and Tenderness," and that the song's infringing elements resulted in only 10-15% of the profits from the song. The Isley Brothers, however, attacked the credibility of one of Sony Music's experts. Furthermore, they presented evidence that Bolton's infringing song was the album's lead single, that it was released 19 days before the album, and that Bolton engaged in telephone promotion of the song. The jury found that 28% of the album's profits derived from the song, and that 66% of the song's profits resulted from infringing elements.

We affirm the jury's apportionment of the profits for several reasons. First, the jury instructions adequately conveyed the burden of proof. Second, the burden of proof was on Sony Music, and the jury chose not to believe Sony Music's experts. Finally, a jury verdict apportioning less than 100% of the profits but more than the percentage estimates of Sony Music's experts does not represent clear error.

E. Deduction of Tax Liability

Sony Music also argues that the district court erred in allowing Bolton and Goldmark, but not Sony Music, to deduct income taxes due to profits from the album. Whether income taxes are considered "deductible expenses " under S 504(b) is an issue of first impression in this circuit. The Supreme Court held that willful infringers could not deduct income taxes, but it left open the possibility that non-willful infringers could deduct their income taxes from the infringing profits. See L.P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co., 277 U.S. 97, 99-100 (1928). The circuits are split over whether non-willful infringers such as Bolton, Goldmark, and Sony Music can deduct income taxes from their infringing profits. Compare In Design v. K-Mart Apparel Corp., 13 F.3d 559, 567 (2d Cir. 1994) (allowing the deduction of income taxes) with Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Mfg. Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 1166, 1169-70 (6th Cir. 1980) (not allowing the deduction of income taxes).

The Second Circuit allowed the deduction of income taxes because if infringers are liable for pre-tax profits, they may end up paying more money than they ever received. See In Design, 13 F.3d at 567. Under the Second Circuit's rule, the infringer receives a windfall by (1) paying a smaller damages award and (2) deducting the entire, pre-tax award from gross income on a subsequent tax return. The Sixth Circuit rejected the deduction of income taxes because the increased pre-tax [488] profits paid to the copyright holder will be balanced out by an eventual tax refund based on the pre-tax award. See Schnadig, 620 F.2d at 1169-70. Under the Sixth Circuit's rule, the copyright holder receives a windfall by receiving a larger, pre-tax award.

During the third phase of this trial, the district court adopted the findings of the special master's report regarding the deduction of income taxes. The district court followed the Second Circuit rule and allowed Bolton and Goldmark, as non-willful infringers, to deduct the income taxes and management fees that they paid relating to the infringing song. The district court, however, refused to allow Sony Music to deduct its Net Operating Loss Carry-forward (NOL) because the NOL did not have a "concrete financial impact."

We uphold the district court's decision to allow non-willful infringers to deduct income taxes, but not NOL. In this case, Bolton and Goldmark actually paid income taxes and management fees on the infringing profits. Sony Music, however, never actually paid income taxes on its infringing profits. Rather, Sony Music claimed it offset nearly $1.7 million in taxes on the infringing profits against its parent company's NOL. No court has ever found that NOL is a deductible expense under S 504(b). Furthermore, we find that the district court's distinctions between taxes actually paid and taxes not actually paid was a fair one. Thus, we affirm the district court's calculation of a $4,218,838 damages award against Sony Music.

F. Second New Trial Motion

Finally, Bolton and Goldmark claim that the district court erred in rejecting their second motion for new trial. The district court's denial of a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 278 (1989); Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275, 1281 (9th Cir. 1998). The abuse of discretion standard applies particularly when the district court's denial is based on the motion's untimeliness. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1294-96 (9th Cir. 1992).

Bolton and Goldmark's second motion for a new trial was based on the discovery of new evidence that disputed the Isley Brothers' claim of authorship. A day before the deadline for post-trial motions, the appellees discovered evidence alleging that the Turkcords, a group that played with the Isley Brothers in the mid-1960s, claimed to have written the 1964 song, "Love is a Wonderful Thing." Bolton and Goldmark did not immediately notify the district court of this new evidence. Instead, fourteen days after the deadline for post-trial motions had passed, they filed an additional motion for new trial. The district court rejected the second motion for new trial as untimely filed.

We affirm the district court's denial of the second motion for new trial because the evidence, if true, goes at most to the weight and credibility of the evidence before the jury. At trial, Ronald Isley claimed to have written the song with the deceased guitar legend, Jimi Hendrix. (As a young man, Hendrix played in the Isley Brothers' band.) The Turkcords' claims of authorship are dubious for several reasons. The Turkcords knew about the re-release of "Love is a Wonderful Thing" by United Artists in 1991, yet they claimed that the Isley Brothers had agreed to share the song's royalties with them only after hearing about the damages award in this case on "Inside Edition." Furthermore, Bolton and Goldmark knew about this new evidence before the deadline for the post-trial motions, yet they did not immediately notify the district court.

Even if the Turkcords' claims of authorship are true, a new trial is not warranted in the interests of justice because the Isley Brothers' copyright ownership is not jeopardized. Registration is [489] prima facie evidence of the validity of a copyright. See 17 U.S.C. S 410(c) (1994). This presumption can be rebutted by the defendant's showing that the plaintiff's work is not original. See North Coast Indus. v. Jason Maxwell, Inc., 972 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 1992). North Coast 's definition of originality is broad: " `All that is needed to satisfy both the Constitution and the statute is that the "author " contributed something more than a "merely trivial" variation, something recognizably "his own." Originality in this context means "little more than a prohibition of actual copying." ' " Id. (quoting Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1163 n.5 (quoting Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, 191 F.2d 99, 102-03 (2d Cir. 1951))). See also Kamar Int'l Inc. v. Russ Berrie and Co., 657 F.2d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir. 1981) (employing a broad definition of originality relating to toy stuffed animals).

In this case, the Isley Brothers undoubtedly contributed something original to "Love is a Wonderful Thing. " Their proteges, the Turkcords, purportedly wrote the song, then gave the Isley Brothers' permission to record it after the voice of the Turkcords' lead singer allegedly "cracked. " Members of the Turkcords allegedly sang back-up on the record. Yet the Turkcords never copyrighted their song. They relied on the Isley Brothers' alleged promise to share the royalties with them.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Bolton and Goldmark's second motion for a new trial based on this evidence. The Turkcords' claims of authorship would not have affected the outcome of the case and at most go to the weight and credibility of the evidence. Bolton and Goldmark's second motion was a last-ditch attempt to discredit the jury's verdict. The district court heard all of the evidence in this case, instructed the jury on the applicable law, yet refused to reverse the jury's verdict pursuant to motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Having found that the law was properly applied in this case, we leave the district court's decisions and the jury's credibility determinations undisturbed.

AFFIRMED.

[1] Marvin Gaye also referred to the song's chorus, "She's some kind of wonderful," in his song, "Too Busy Thinking About My Baby." See Marvin Gaye, Too Busy Thinking About My Baby, on MPG, (Motown 1969). 

7.2 Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. 7.2 Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

663 F.Supp. 706 (1987)

Saul STEINBERG, Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.; RCA Corporation; Diener Hauser Bates Co., Inc.; Columbia Pictures International Corporation; Columbia Pictures Home Video, Inc.; RCA International Audio-Visuals, Inc.; CPT Holdings, Inc.; Gold Col Productions, Inc.; RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video; RCA/Columbia Pictures International Video; the New York Times Company; New York News, Inc.; Newsday, Inc.; News Group Publications, Inc.; the Times Mirror Company; the Hearst Corporation; Chicago Tribune Company; Field Enterprises, Inc.; the Washington Post Co.; A.H. Belo Corporation; Globe Newspaper Company; Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.; A.S. Abell Publishing Co.; and Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., Defendants.
Saul STEINBERG, Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA-DELPHI PRODUCTIONS, Columbia-Delphi Productions II, Delphi Film Associates, Delphi Film Associates II, News Group Boston, Inc., and News Group Chicago, Inc., Defendants.

Nos. 84 Civ. 9208 (LLS), 87 Civ. 1750 (LLS).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

June 24, 1987.

[707] [708] Rembar & Curtis, New York City, for plaintiff; Charles Rembar, Frank R. Curtis, Mark W. Budwig, of counsel.

Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn, New York City, for defendants; Stephen F. Huff, Philip R. Hoffman, Tom J. Ferber, of counsel.

OPINION AND ORDER

STANTON, District Judge.

In these actions for copyright infringement, plaintiff Saul Steinberg is suing the producers, promoters, distributors and advertisers of the movie "Moscow on the Hudson" ("Moscow"). Steinberg is an artist whose fame derives in part from cartoons and illustrations he has drawn for The New Yorker magazine. Defendant Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (Columbia) is in the business of producing, promoting and distributing motion pictures, including "Moscow." Defendant RCA Corporation (RCA) was involved with Columbia in promoting and distributing the home video version of "Moscow," and defendant Diener Hauser Bates Co. (DHB) acted as an advertising agent for "Moscow." The other defendants were added to the complaint pursuant to a memorandum decision of this court dated November 17, 1986. These defendants fall into two categories: (1) affiliates of Columbia and RCA that were involved in the distribution of "Moscow" here and/or abroad, and (2) owners of major newspapers that published the allegedly infringing advertisement.

The defendants in the second-captioned action either are joint ventures affiliated with Columbia or are newspapers that published the allegedly infringing advertisement for "Moscow." This action was consolidated with the first by stipulation dated April 3, 1987.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants' promotional poster for "Moscow" infringes his copyright on an illustration that he drew [709] for The New Yorker and that appeared on the cover of the March 29, 1976 issue of the magazine, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810. Defendants deny this allegation and assert the affirmative defenses of fair use as a parody, estoppel and laches.

Defendants have moved, and plaintiff has cross-moved, for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, this court rejects defendants' asserted defenses and grants summary judgment on the issue of copying to plaintiff.

I

To grant summary judgment, Fed.R. Civ.P. 56 requires a court to find that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In reaching its decision, the court must "assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried, while resolving ambiguities and drawing reasonable inferences against the moving party." Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir.1986), citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Summary judgment is often disfavored in copyright cases, for courts are generally reluctant to make subjective comparisons and determinations. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 977 (2d Cir.1980), citing Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 474 (2d Cir.1946). Recently, however, this circuit has "recognized that a court may determine non-infringement as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment." Warner Brothers v. American Broadcasting Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 240 (2d Cir.1983), quoting Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 918 (2d Cir.1980). See also Hoehling, 618 F.2d at 977; Walker v. Time-Life Films, Inc., 615 F.Supp. 430, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2278, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986). "When the evidence is so overwhelming that a court would be justified in ordering a directed verdict at trial, it is proper to grant summary judgment." Silverman v. CBS Inc., 632 F.Supp. 1344, 1352 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (awarding summary judgment to defendant on counterclaim of copyright infringement).

The voluminous submissions that accompanied these cross-motions leave no factual issues concerning which further evidence is likely to be presented at a trial. Moreover, the factual determinations necessary to this decision do not involve conflicts in testimony that would depend for their resolution on an assessment of witness credibility. In addition, this case is different from most copyright infringement actions, in which it is preferable to leave the determination of the issue to a jury: each party has implied that its case is complete by moving for summary judgment, and as neither side has requested a jury, the court would be the trier of fact at trial. Finally, the interests of judicial economy are also served by deciding the case at its present stage. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate.

II

The essential facts are not disputed by the parties despite their disagreements on nonessential matters. On March 29, 1976, The New Yorker published as a cover illustration the work at issue in this suit, widely known as a parochial New Yorker's view of the world. The magazine registered this illustration with the United States Copyright Office and subsequently assigned the copyright to Steinberg. Approximately three months later, plaintiff and The New Yorker entered into an agreement to print and sell a certain number of posters of the cover illustration.

It is undisputed that unauthorized duplications of the poster were made and distributed by unknown persons, although the parties disagree on the extent to which plaintiff attempted to prevent the distribution of those counterfeits. Plaintiff has also conceded that numerous posters have been created and published depicting other localities in the same manner that he depicted New York in his illustration. These facts, however, are irrelevant to the merits of this case, which concerns only the relationship [710] between plaintiff's and defendants' illustrations.

Defendants' illustration was created to advertise the movie "Moscow on the Hudson," which recounts the adventures of a Muscovite who defects in New York. In designing this illustration, Columbia's executive art director, Kevin Nolan, has admitted that he specifically referred to Steinberg's poster, and indeed, that he purchased it and hung it, among others, in his office. Furthermore, Nolan explicitly directed the outside artist whom he retained to execute his design, Craig Nelson, to use Steinberg's poster to achieve a more recognizably New York look. Indeed, Nelson acknowledged having used the facade of one particular edifice, at Nolan's suggestion that it would render his drawing more "New York-ish." Curtis Affidavit ¶ 28(c). While the two buildings are not identical, they are so similar that it is impossible, especially in view of the artist's testimony, not to find that defendants' impermissibly copied plaintiff's.[1]

To decide the issue of infringement, it is necessary to consider the posters themselves. Steinberg's illustration presents a bird's eye view across a portion of the western edge of Manhattan, past the Hudson River and a telescoped version of the rest of the United States and the Pacific Ocean, to a red strip of horizon, beneath which are three flat land masses labeled China, Japan and Russia. The name of the magazine, in The New Yorker's usual typeface, occupies the top fifth of the poster, beneath a thin band of blue wash representing a stylized sky.

The parts of the poster beyond New York are minimalized, to symbolize a New Yorker's myopic view of the centrality of his city to the world. The entire United States west of the Hudson River, for example, is reduced to a brown strip labeled "Jersey," together with a light green trapezoid with a few rudimentary rock outcroppings and the names of only seven cities and two states scattered across it. The few blocks of Manhattan, by contrast, are depicted and colored in detail. The four square blocks of the city, which occupy the whole lower half of the poster, include numerous buildings, pedestrians and cars, as well as parking lots and lamp posts, with water towers atop a few of the buildings. The whimsical, sketchy style and spiky lettering are recognizable as Steinberg's.

The "Moscow" illustration depicts the three main characters of the film on the lower third of their poster, superimposed on a bird's eye view of New York City, and continues eastward across Manhattan and the Atlantic Ocean, past a rudimentary evocation of Europe, to a clump of recognizably Russian-styled buildings on the horizon, labeled "Moscow." The movie credits appear over the lower portion of the characters. The central part of the poster depicts approximately four New York city blocks, with fairly detailed buildings, pedestrians and vehicles, a parking lot, and some water towers and lamp posts. Columbia's artist added a few New York landmarks at apparently random places in his illustration, apparently to render the locale more easily recognizable. Beyond the blue strip labeled "Atlantic Ocean," Europe is represented by London, Paris and Rome, each anchored by a single landmark (although the landmark used for Rome is the Leaning Tower of Pisa).

The horizon behind Moscow is delineated by a red crayoned strip, above which are the title of the movie and a brief textual introduction to the plot. The poster is crowned by a thin strip of blue wash, apparently a stylization of the sky. This poster is executed in a blend of styles: the three characters, whose likenesses were copied from a photograph, have realistic faces and somewhat sketchy clothing, and the city blocks are drawn in a fairly detailed but sketchy style. The lettering on the drawing is spiky, in block-printed handwritten capital letters substantially identical to plaintiff's, while the printed texts at the top and bottom of the poster are in the [711] typeface commonly associated with The New Yorker magazine.[2]

III

To succeed in a copyright infringement action, a plaintiff must prove ownership of the copyright and copying by the defendant. Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir.1976); Durham Industries, 630 F.2d at 911; Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1092 (2d Cir.1977). There is no substantial dispute concerning plaintiff's ownership of a valid copyright in his illustration. Therefore, in order to prevail on liability, plaintiff need establish only the second element of the cause of action.

"Because of the inherent difficulty in obtaining direct evidence of copying, it is usually proved by circumstantial evidence of access to the copyrighted work and substantial similarities as to protectible material in the two works." Reyher, 533 F.2d at 90, citing Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 468 (2d Cir.1946). See also Novelty Textile Mills, 558 F.2d at 1092. "Of course, if there are no similarities, no amount of evidence of access will suffice to prove copying." Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d at 468. See also Novelty Textile Mills, 558 F.2d at 1092 n. 2.

Defendants' access to plaintiff's illustration is established beyond peradventure. Therefore, the sole issue remaining with respect to liability is whether there is such substantial similarity between the copyrighted and accused works as to establish a violation of plaintiff's copyright. The central issue of "substantial similarity," which can be considered a close question of fact, may also validly be decided as a question of law. Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir.1985), citing Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir.1977).

"Substantial similarity" is an elusive concept. This circuit has recently recognized that

[t]he "substantial similarity" that supports an inference of copying sufficient to establish infringement of a copyright is not a concept familiar to the public at large. It is a term to be used in a courtroom to strike a delicate balance between the protection to which authors are entitled under an act of Congress and the freedom that exists for all others to create their works outside the area protected by infringement.

Warner Bros., 720 F.2d at 245.

The definition of "substantial similarity" in this circuit is "whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work." Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd., 360 F.2d 1021, 1022 (2d Cir.1966); Silverman v. CBS, Inc., 632 F.Supp. at 1351-52. A plaintiff need no longer meet the severe "ordinary observer" test established by Judge Learned Hand in Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir.1960). Uneeda Doll Co., Inc. v. Regent Baby Products Corp., 355 F.Supp. 438, 450 (E.D.N.Y.1972). Under Judge Hand's formulation, there would be substantial similarity only where "the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same." 274 F.2d at 489.

Moreover, it is now recognized that "[t]he copying need not be of every detail so long as the copy is substantially similar to the copyrighted work." Comptone Co. v. Rayex Corp., 251 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir. 1958). See also Durham Industries, 630 F.2d at 911-12; Novelty Textile Mills, 558 F.2d at 1092-93.

In determining whether there is substantial similarity between two works, it is crucial to distinguish between an idea and its expression. It is an axiom of copyright law, established in the case law and since codified at 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), that only the [712] particular expression of an idea is protectible, while the idea itself is not. See, e.g., Durham Industries, 630 F.2d at 912; Reyher, 533 F.2d at 90, citing Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217, 74 S.Ct. 460, 470, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954); Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. (11 Otto) 99, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879). See also Warner Bros., 720 F.2d at 239.

"The idea/expression distinction, although an imprecise tool, has not been abandoned because we have as yet discovered no better way to reconcile the two competing societal interests that provide the rationale for the granting of and restrictions on copyright protection," namely, both rewarding individual ingenuity, and nevertheless allowing progress and improvements based on the same subject matter by others than the original author. Durham Industries, 630 F.2d at 912, quoting Reyher, 533 F.2d at 90.

There is no dispute that defendants cannot be held liable for using the idea of a map of the world from an egocentrically myopic perspective. No rigid principle has been developed, however, to ascertain when one has gone beyond the idea to the expression, and "[d]ecisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc." Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir.1960) (L. Hand, J.). As Judge Frankel once observed, "Good eyes and common sense may be as useful as deep study of reported and unreported cases, which themselves are tied to highly particularized facts." Couleur International Ltd. v. Opulent Fabrics, Inc., 330 F.Supp. 152, 153 (S.D.N.Y.1971).

Even at first glance, one can see the striking stylistic relationship between the posters, and since style is one ingredient of "expression," this relationship is significant. Defendants' illustration was executed in the sketchy, whimsical style that has become one of Steinberg's hallmarks. Both illustrations represent a bird's eye view across the edge of Manhattan and a river bordering New York City to the world beyond. Both depict approximately four city blocks in detail and become increasingly minimalist as the design recedes into the background. Both use the device of a narrow band of blue wash across the top of the poster to represent the sky, and both delineate the horizon with a band of primary red.[3]

The strongest similarity is evident in the rendering of the New York City blocks. Both artists chose a vantage point that looks directly down a wide two-way cross street that intersects two avenues before reaching a river. Despite defendants' protestations, this is not an inevitable way of depicting blocks in a city with a grid-like street system, particularly since most New York City cross streets are one-way. Since even a photograph may be copyrighted because "no photograph, however simple, can be unaffected by the personal influence of the author," Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assoc., 293 F.Supp. 130, 141 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), quoting Bleistein, supra, one can hardly gainsay the right of an artist to protect his choice of perspective and layout in a drawing, especially in conjunction with the overall concept and individual details. Indeed, the fact that defendants changed the names of the streets while retaining the same graphic depiction weakens their case: had they intended their illustration realistically to depict the streets labeled on the poster, their four city blocks would not so closely resemble plaintiff's four city blocks. Moreover, their argument that they intended the jumble of streets and landmarks and buildings to symbolize their Muscovite protagonist's confusion in a new city does not detract from the strong similarity between their poster and Steinberg's.

[713] While not all of the details are identical, many of them could be mistaken for one another; for example, the depiction of the water towers, and the cars, and the red sign above a parking lot, and even many of the individual buildings. The shapes, windows, and configurations of various edifices are substantially similar. The ornaments, facades and details of Steinberg's buildings appear in defendants', although occasionally at other locations. In this context, it is significant that Steinberg did not depict any buildings actually erected in New York; rather, he was inspired by the general appearance of the structures on the West Side of Manhattan to create his own New York-ish structures. Thus, the similarity between the buildings depicted in the "Moscow" and Steinberg posters cannot be explained by an assertion that the artists happened to choose the same buildings to draw. The close similarity can be explained only by the defendants' artist having copied the plaintiff's work. Similarly, the locations and size, the errors and anomalies of Steinberg's shadows and streetlight, are meticulously imitated.

In addition, the Columbia artist's use of the childlike, spiky block print that has become one of Steinberg's hallmarks to letter the names of the streets in the "Moscow" poster can be explained only as copying. There is no inherent justification for using this style of lettering to label New York City streets as it is associated with New York only through Steinberg's poster.

While defendants' poster shows the city of Moscow on the horizon in far greater detail than anything is depicted in the background of plaintiff's illustration, this fact alone cannot alter the conclusion. "Substantial similarity" does not require identity, and "duplication or near identity is not necessary to establish infringement." Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1167. Neither the depiction of Moscow, nor the eastward perspective, nor the presence of randomly scattered New York City landmarks in defendants' poster suffices to eliminate the substantial similarity between the posters. As Judge Learned Hand wrote, "no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate." Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 669, 56 S.Ct. 835, 80 L.Ed. 1392 (1936).

Defendants argue that their poster could not infringe plaintiff's copyright because only a small proportion of its design could possibly be considered similar. This argument is both factually and legally without merit. "[A] copyright infringement may occur by reason of a substantial similarity that involves only a small portion of each work." Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 683 F.2d 610, 624 n. 14 (2d Cir.1982). Moreover, this case involves the entire protected work and an iconographically, as well as proportionately, significant portion of the allegedly infringing work. Cf. Mattel, Inc. v. Azrak-Hamway Intern., Inc., 724 F.2d 357, 360 (2d Cir.1983); Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F.Supp. 741, 744 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 623 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1980) (taking small part of protected work can violate copyright).

The process by which defendants' poster was created also undermines this argument. The "map," that is, the portion about which plaintiff is complaining, was designed separately from the rest of the poster. The likenesses of the three main characters, which were copied from a photograph, and the blocks of text were superimposed on the completed map. Nelson Deposition at 21-22; Nolan Deposition at 28.

I also reject defendants' argument that any similarities between the works are unprotectible scenes a faire, or "incidents, characters or settings which, as a practical matter, are indispensable or standard in the treatment of a given topic." Walker, 615 F.Supp. at 436. See also Reyher, 533 F.2d at 92. It is undeniable that a drawing of New York City blocks could be expected to include buildings, pedestrians, vehicles, lampposts and water towers. Plaintiff, however, does not complain of defendants' mere use of these elements in their poster; rather, his complaint is that defendants [714] copied his expression of those elements of a street scene.

While evidence of independent creation by the defendants would rebut plaintiff's prima facie case, "the absence of any countervailing evidence of creation independent of the copyrighted source may well render clearly erroneous a finding that there was not copying." Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir.1970). See also Novelty Textile Mills, 558 F.2d at 1092 n. 2.

Moreover, it is generally recognized that "... since a very high degree of similarity is required in order to dispense with proof of access, it must logically follow that where proof of access is offered, the required degree of similarity may be somewhat less than would be necessary in the absence of such proof." 2 Nimmer § 143.4 at 634, quoted in Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1172. As defendants have conceded access to plaintiff's copyrighted illustration, a somewhat lesser degree of similarity suffices to establish a copyright infringement than might otherwise be required. Here, however, the demonstrable similarities are such that proof of access, although in fact conceded, is almost unnecessary.

IV

I find meritless defendants' assertion that, to the extent that the "Moscow" poster evokes Steinberg's, that evocation is justified under the parody branch of the "fair use" doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107. As this circuit has held, the copyrighted work must be "at least in part an object of the parody," MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180, 185 (2d Cir.1981). The record does not support a claim that defendants intended to satirize plaintiff's illustration; indeed, the deposition testimony of Columbia's executive art director tends to contradict such a claim. Moreover, an assertion that defendants consciously parodied the idea of a parochial view of the world is immaterial: ideas are not protected by copyright, and the infringement alleged is of Steinberg's particular expression of that idea. Defendants' variation on the visual joke of plaintiff's illustration does not, without an element of humor aimed at some aspect of the illustration itself, render it a parody and therefore a fair use of plaintiff's work.

In codifying the case law on determining whether one work constitutes a fair use of another, Congress instructed the courts to consider certain factors, the first of which is whether the intended use of the allegedly infringing work is "of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." 17 U.S.C. § 107(1). As the Second Circuit said in a different artistic context, "We are not prepared to hold that a commercial [artist] can plagiarize a ... copyrighted [work], substitute [certain elements] of his own, [produce] it for commercial gain, and then escape liability by calling the end result a parody or satire on the mores of society." MCA, Inc., 677 F.2d at 185.

In analyzing the commercial or noncommercial nature of the "Moscow" poster, it is useful to distinguish between two conceptually different situations: advertising material that promotes a parody of a copyrighted work, and advertising material that itself infringes a copyright. In the first case, the fact that the advertisement uses elements of the copyrighted work does not necessarily mean that it infringes the copyright, if the product that it advertises constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted work. See, e.g., Warner Bros., 720 F.2d at 242-44 (promotional broadcasts for television series legally parodying the Superman comic strip character did not infringe copyright in Superman character).

In the second case, the work being advertised bears no relationship to the copyrighted work, but the advertisement itself infringes the copyright. In such a case, the owners of the copyright can prevent the advertisement from being used. As the Second Circuit has said, "[n]o matter how well known a copyrighted phrase becomes, its author is entitled to guard against its appropriation to promote the sale of commercial products." Warner Bros., 720 F.2d at 242. See, e.g., D.C. Comics, Inc. v. Crazy Eddie, Inc., 205 [715] U.S.P.Q. 1177 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (discount electronics chain not permitted to advertise its stores using parody of well-known lines associated with copyrighted Superman character).

This situation fits the second case. Neither the "Moscow" movie nor the poster was designed to be a parody of the Steinberg illustration. The poster merely borrowed numerous elements from Steinberg to create an appealing advertisement to promote an unrelated commercial product, the movie. No parody of the illustration is involved, and defendants are not entitled to the protection of the parody branch of the fair use doctrine.

The other factors mandated by 17 U.S.C. § 107 do nothing to mitigate this determination. The copyrighted work at issue is an artistic creation, 17 U.S.C. § 107(2), a very substantial portion of which was appropriated in the defendants' work, 17 U.S.C. § 107(3). As for the value of the copyrighted work, 17 U.S.C. § 107(4), plaintiff submitted testimony to the court to show that his reputation was injured by having the public believe that he voluntarily lent his work to a profit-making enterprise.

V

In their motion, defendants raised the affirmative defenses of estoppel and laches. Although Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c) generally requires affirmative defenses to be pleaded, courts have been more lenient in the context of motions for summary judgment. "[A]bsent prejudice to the plaintiff, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense in a motion for summary judgment for the first time." Rivera v. Anaya, 726 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1984). See 2A, 6 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶¶ 8.28, 56.02[2], 56.17[4] (2d ed. 1986). It is therefore appropriate for this court to consider these defenses on the merits.

Defendants base their assertions of these equitable defenses on the following factual claims: (1) plaintiff's alleged "deliberate inaction" for eight years in the face of numerous counterfeits of his poster and adaptations of his idea to various other localities; (2) plaintiff's alleged failure to act in response to the newspaper advertisements that appeared to promote "Moscow"; and (3) defendants' assertion that Steinberg waited six months before even complaining to Columbia about their alleged infringement of his copyright on the poster, which defendants claim in their brief was a tactic on plaintiff's part to maximize the damages he hoped to receive.

The record, however, does not support defendants' claims. First, Steinberg specifically requested that The New Yorker magazine attempt to identify the sources of the counterfeit posters and prevent their continued distribution. As for the so-called adaptations of Steinberg's idea, there is no evidence that they infringed his copyright or that anyone ever believed that they did. As plaintiff freely and necessarily admits, the law does not protect an idea, but only the specific expression of that idea. The examples that defendants use to support their defense can at most be considered derivative of Steinberg's idea; none is a close copy of the poster itself, as defendants' is. Finally, defendants' last two assertions are rebutted by evidence that The New Yorker protested to The New York Times on plaintiff's behalf and at his request when "Moscow" opened, and that Columbia learned of this protest only a few weeks later.

Moreover, even were defendants' factual assertions borne out by the record, their equitable defenses would have to be rejected because they have failed to establish the elements of either estoppel or laches.

"A party seeking to invoke the doctrine of estoppel must plead and prove each of the essential elements: (1) a representation of fact ...; (2) rightful reliance thereon; and (3) injury or damage ... resulting from denial by the party making the representation." Galvez v. Local 804 Welfare Trust Fund, 543 F.Supp. 316, 317 (E.D.N. Y.1982), citing Haeberle v. Board of Trustees, 624 F.2d 1132 (2d Cir.1980).

Defendants have not established even the first of these elements. They argue that plaintiff's alleged silence [716] during the course of their advertisement campaign constitutes a sufficient representation of his acquiescence to meet the first requirement of the doctrine. As noted above, however, plaintiff did not remain silent, and the record shows that defendants, despite their awareness of his objections, continued to promote the film with the same advertisements and subsequently released a videocassette version of "Moscow" using the same promotional design. See Lottie Joplin Thomas Trust v. Crown Publishers, 592 F.2d 651, 655 (2d Cir.1978) (defense of estoppel falls where defendants fail to produce any evidence of detrimental reliance on plaintiff's alleged representations). Defendants overlook, moreover, that silence or inaction, in the absence of any duty or relationship between the parties, cannot give rise to an estoppel. Whiting Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 516 F.Supp. 643, 656 (S.D.N.Y.1981). Cf. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 522 F.2d 369, 378 (2d Cir.1975). No such duty existed here.

Defendants have likewise failed to establish the defense of laches. The party asserting laches must show that the opposing party "did not assert her or their rights diligently, and that such asserted lack of diligence ... resulted in prejudice to them." Lottie Joplin, 592 F.2d at 655, citing, inter alia, Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 282, 81 S.Ct. 534, 543, 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961). In Lottie Joplin, the Second Circuit held that a gap of approximately half a year between the publication of the allegedly infringing work and the institution of the lawsuit did not constitute a delay sufficient to establish a claim of laches. In this case, defendants were informed within weeks of plaintiff's disapproval of their poster; moreover, they have presented no evidence that, even if they had acknowledged any awareness of plaintiff's reaction, they would in any way have modified their subsequent actions. Consequently, they have failed to prove prejudice to themselves.

VI

For the reasons set out above, summary judgment is granted to plaintiffs as to copying.

A pretrial conference will be held on September 11, 1987, at 2 o'clock P.M., in Courtroom 35, to determine the proper measure and allocation of damages, other appropriate matters, and the parties' proposed schedule of further proceedings. The parties are to confer in advance of this conference, with the goal of reaching agreement on these matters, if possible.

[1] Nolan claimed also to have been inspired by some of the posters that were inspired by Steinberg's; such secondary inspiration, however, is irrelevant to whether or not the "Moscow" poster infringes plaintiff's copyright by having impermissibly copied it.

[2] The typeface is not a subject of copyright, but the similarity reinforces the impression that defendants copied plaintiff's illustration.

[3] Defendants claim that since this use of thin bands of primary colors is a traditional Japanese technique, their adoption of it cannot infringe Steinberg's copyright. This argument ignores the principle that while "[o]thers are free to copy the original ... [t]hey are not free to copy the copy." Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 250, 23 S.Ct. 298, 300, 47 L.Ed. 460 (1903) (Holmes, J.). Cf. Dave Grossman Designs, Inc. v. Bortin, 347 F.Supp. 1150, 1156-57 (N.D.Ill.1972) (an artist may use the same subject and style as another "so long as the second artist does not substantially copy [the first artist's] specific expression of his idea.")

7.3 ECJ, Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening, Case C-5-08, July 16, 2009 7.3 ECJ, Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening, Case C-5-08, July 16, 2009

Case C-5/08

Infopaq International A/S

v

Danske Dagblades Forening

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret)

(Copyright – Information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Articles 2 and 5 – Literary and artistic works – Concept of ‘reproduction’ – Reproduction ‘in part’ – Reproduction of short extracts of literary works – Newspaper articles – Temporary and transient reproductions – Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out)

Summary of the Judgment

1.        Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Right of reproduction – Reproduction in part – Concept

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 2(a))

2.        Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Right of reproduction – Exceptions and limitations – Conditions – Transient nature of the act of reproduction

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 5(1))

1.        An act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination.

Copyright within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 is liable to apply only in relation to a subject-matter which is original in the sense that it is its author’s own intellectual creation. As regards the parts of a work, they are protected by copyright since, as such, they share the originality of the whole work. The various parts of a work thus enjoy protection under that provision, provided that they contain elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work. Given the requirement of a broad interpretation of the scope of the protection conferred by Article 2 of that directive, the possibility may not be ruled out that certain isolated sentences, or even certain parts of sentences in the text in question, may be suitable for conveying to the reader the originality of a publication such as a newspaper article, by communicating to that reader an element which is, in itself, the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of that article. Such sentences or parts of sentences are, therefore, liable to come within the scope of the protection provided for in Article 2(a) of that directive.

(see paras 37-39, 47-48, 51, operative part 1)

2.        The act of printing out an extract of 11 words, during a data capture process consisting in scanning of newspaper articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out, does not fulfil the condition of being transient in nature as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and, therefore, that process cannot be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders.

An act can be held to be ‘transient’ within the meaning of the second condition laid down in that provision only if its duration is limited to what is necessary for the proper completion of the technological process in question, it being understood that that process must be automated so that it deletes that act automatically, without human intervention, once its function of enabling the completion of such a process has come to an end. However, by the last act of reproduction in the data capture process, a reproduction is made outside the sphere of computer technology by printing out files containing the extracts of 11 words and thus reproduces those extracts on a paper medium. Once the reproduction has been affixed onto such a medium, it disappears only when the paper itself is destroyed. Moreover, since the data capture process is apparently not likely itself to destroy that medium, the deletion of that reproduction is entirely dependent on the will of the user of that process. It is not at all certain that he will want to dispose of the reproduction, which means that there is a risk that the reproduction will remain in existence for a longer period, according to the user’s needs. In those circumstances, the last act in the data capture process, during which the extracts of 11 words are printed out, is not a transient act within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.

(see paras 64, 67-70, 74, operative part 2)

 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

16 July 2009 (*)

(Copyright – Information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Articles 2 and 5 – Literary and artistic works – Concept of ‘reproduction’ – Reproduction ‘in part’ – Reproduction of short extracts of literary works – Newspaper articles – Temporary and transient reproductions – Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out)

In Case C‑5/08,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Højesteret (Denmark), made by decision of 21 December 2007, received at the Court on 4 January 2008, in the proceedings

Infopaq International A/S

v

Danske Dagblades Forening,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, T. von Danwitz, R. Silva de Lapuerta, G. Arestis and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: V. Trstenjak,

Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 November 2008,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Infopaq International A/S, by A. Jensen, advokat,

–        Danske Dagblades Forening, by M. Dahl Pedersen, advokat,

–        the Austrian Government, by E. Riedl, acting as Agent,

–        the Commission of the European Communities, by H. Krämer and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 February 2009,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, first, the interpretation of Article 2(a) 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) and, secondly, the conditions for exemption of temporary acts of reproduction within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive.

2        The reference was made in the context of proceedings between Infopaq International A/S (‘Infopaq’) and Danske Dagblades Forening (‘DDF’) concerning the dismissal of its application for a declaration that it was not required to obtain the consent of the rightholders for acts of reproduction of newspaper articles using an automated process consisting in the scanning and then conversion into digital files followed by electronic processing of that file.

 Legal context

 International law

3        Under Article 9(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘the TRIPs Agreement’), as set out in Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, which was approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1):

‘Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto. …’

4        Article 2 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971), as amended on 28 September 1979 (‘the Berne Convention’) reads as follows:

‘(1)      The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; …

…

(5)      Collections of literary or artistic works such as encyclopaedias and anthologies which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such, without prejudice to the copyright in each of the works forming part of such collections.

…

(8)      The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information.’

5        Under Article 9(1) of the Berne Convention, authors of literary and artistic works protected by that convention are to have the exclusive right of authorising the reproduction of those works, in any manner or form.

 Community law

6        Article 1 of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42) provided:

‘1.      In accordance with the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall protect computer programs, by copyright, as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. …

…

3.      A computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation. No other criteria shall be applied to determine its eligibility for protection.’

7        Article 3(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20) provides:

‘In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author’s own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by copyright. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for that protection.’

8        Directive 2001/29 states the following in recitals 4, 6, 9 to 11, 20 to 22, 31 and 33 in the preamble thereto:

‘(4)      A harmonised legal framework on copyright and related rights, through increased legal certainty and while providing for a high level of protection of intellectual property, will foster substantial investment in creativity and innovation, including network infrastructure ...

(6)      Without harmonisation at Community level, legislative activities at national level which have already been initiated in a number of Member States in order to respond to the technological challenges might result in significant differences in protection and thereby in restrictions on the free movement of services and products incorporating, or based on, intellectual property, leading to a refragmentation of the internal market and legislative inconsistency. The impact of such legislative differences and uncertainties will become more significant with the further development of the information society, which has already greatly increased transborder exploitation of intellectual property. This development will and should further increase. Significant legal differences and uncertainties in protection may hinder economies of scale for new products and services containing copyright and related rights.

…

(9)      Any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must take as a basis a high level of protection, since such rights are crucial to intellectual creation. …

(10)      If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work …

(11)      A rigorous, effective system for the protection of copyright and related rights is one of the main ways of ensuring that European cultural creativity and production receive the necessary resources and of safeguarding the independence and dignity of artistic creators and performers.

…

(20)      This Directive is based on principles and rules already laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives [91/250] … and [96/9], and it develops those principles and rules and places them in the context of the information society. The provisions of this Directive should be without prejudice to the provisions of those Directives, unless otherwise provided in this Directive.

(21)      This Directive should define the scope of the acts covered by the reproduction right with regard to the different beneficiaries. This should be done in conformity with the acquis communautaire. A broad definition of these acts is needed to ensure legal certainty within the internal market.

(22)      The objective of proper support for the dissemination of culture must not be achieved by sacrificing strict protection of rights or by tolerating illegal forms of distribution of counterfeited or pirated works.

…

(31)      A fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matter must be safeguarded. …

…

(33)      The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process and carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made. The acts of reproduction concerned should have no separate economic value on their own. To the extent that they meet these conditions, this exception should include acts which enable browsing as well as acts of caching to take place, including those which enable transmission systems to function efficiently, provided that the intermediary does not modify the information and does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information. A use should be considered lawful where it is authorised by the rightholder or not restricted by law.’

9        According to Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29:

‘Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:

(a)      for authors, of their works.’

10      Article 5 of the same directive provides:

‘(1)      Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:

(a)      a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or

(b)      a lawful use

of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

…

5.      The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.’

11      According to Article 6 of 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 2006 L 372, p. 12):

‘Photographs which are original in the sense that they are the author’s own intellectual creation shall be protected in accordance with Article 1 [which specifies the duration of the rights of an author of a literary or artistic work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention]. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection. Member States may provide for the protection of other photographs.’

 National law

12      Articles 2 and 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 were transposed into Danish law by paragraphs 2 and 11a(1) of Law No 395 on copyright (lov n°395 om ophavsret) of 14 June 1995 (Lovtidende 1995 A, p. 1796), as amended and consolidated by, inter alia, Law No 1051 (lov n°1051 om ændring af ophavsretsloven) of 17 December 2002 (Lovtidende 2002 A, p. 7881).

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

13      Infopaq operates a media monitoring and analysis business which consists primarily in drawing up summaries of selected articles from Danish daily newspapers and other periodicals. The articles are selected on the basis of certain subject criteria agreed with customers and the selection is made by means of a ‘data capture process’. The summaries are sent to customers by email.

14      DDF is a professional association of Danish daily newspaper publishers, whose function is inter alia to assist its members with copyright issues.

15      In 2005 DDF became aware that Infopaq was scanning newspaper articles for commercial purposes without authorisation from the relevant rightholders. Taking the view that such consent was necessary for processing articles using the process in question, DDF complained to Infopaq about this procedure.

16      The data capture process comprises the five phases described below which, according to DDF, lead to four acts of reproduction of newspaper articles.

17      First, the relevant publications are registered manually by Infopaq employees in an electronic registration database.

18      Secondly, once the spines are cut off the publications so that all the pages consist of loose sheets, the publications are scanned. The section to be scanned is selected from the registration database before the publication is put into the scanner. Scanning allows a TIFF (‘Tagged Image File Format’) file to be created for each page of the publication. When scanning is completed, the TIFF file is transferred to an OCR (‘Optical Character Recognition’) server.

19      Thirdly, the OCR server translates the TIFF file into data that can be processed digitally. During that process, the image of each letter is translated into a character code which tells the computer what type of letter it is. For instance, the image of the letters ‘TDC’ is translated into something the computer can treat as the letters ‘TDC’ and put in a text format which can be recognised by the computer’s system. These data are saved as a text file which can be understood by any text processing program. The OCR process is completed by deleting the TIFF file.

20      Fourthly, the text file is processed to find a search word defined beforehand. Each time a match for a search word is found, data is generated giving the publication, section and page number on which the match was found, together with a value expressed as a percentage between 0 and 100 indicating how far into the text it is to be found, in order to make it easier to read the article. Also in order to make it easier to find the search word when reading the article, the five words which come before and after the search word are captured (‘extract of 11 words’). At the end of the process the text file is deleted.

21      Fifthly, at the end of the data capture process a cover sheet is printed out in respect of all the pages where the relevant search word was found. The following is an example of the text of a cover sheet:

‘4 November 2005 – Dagbladet Arbejderen, page 3:

TDC: 73% “a forthcoming sale of the telecommunications group TDC which is expected to be bought”’.

22      Infopaq disputed the claim that the procedure required consent from the rightholders and brought an action against DDF before the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), claiming that DDF should be ordered to acknowledge that Infopaq is entitled in Denmark to apply the abovementioned procedure without the consent of DDF or of its members. After the Østre Landsret dismissed that action, Infopaq brought an appeal before the referring court.

23      According to the Højesteret, it is not disputed in this case that consent from the rightholders is not required to engage in press monitoring activity and the writing of summaries consisting in manual reading of each publication, selection of the relevant articles on the basis of predetermined search words, and production of a manually prepared cover sheet for the summary writers, giving an identified search word in an article and its position in the newspaper. Similarly, the parties in the main proceedings do not dispute that genuinely independent summary writing per se is lawful and does not require consent from the rightholders.

24      Nor is it disputed in this case that the data capture process described above involves two acts of reproduction: the creation of a TIFF file when the printed articles are scanned and the conversion of the TIFF file into a text file. In addition, it is common ground that this procedure entails the reproduction of parts of the scanned printed articles since the extract of 11 words is stored and those 11 words are printed out on paper.

25      There is, however, disagreement between the parties as to whether there is reproduction as contemplated by Article 2 of Directive 2001/29. Likewise, they disagree as to whether, if there is reproduction, the acts in question, taken as a whole, are covered by the exemption from the right of reproduction provided for in Article 5(1) of that directive.

26      In those circumstances, the Højesteret a decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Can the storing and subsequent printing out of a text extract from an article in a daily newspaper, consisting of a search word and the five preceding and five subsequent words, be regarded as acts of reproduction which are protected (see Article 2 of [Directive 2001/29]?

(2)      Is the context in which temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant to whether they can be regarded as “transient” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29)?

(3)      Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as “transient” where the reproduction is processed, for example, by the creation of a text file on the basis of an image file or by a search for text strings on the basis of a text file?

(4)      Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as “transient” where part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, is stored?

(5)      Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as “transient” where part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, is printed out?

(6)      Is the stage of the technological process at which temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant to whether they constitute “an integral and essential part of a technological process” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29)?

(7)      Can temporary acts of reproduction be an “integral and essential part of a technological process” if they consist of manual scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter are transformed from a printed medium into a digital medium?

(8)      Can temporary acts of reproduction constitute an “integral and essential part of a technological process” where they consist of printing out part of the reproduction, comprising one or more text extracts of 11 words?

(9)      Does “lawful use” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29) include any form of use which does not require the rightholder’s consent?

(10)      Does “lawful use” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29) include the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduction, and the storing and possible printing out of part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, for use in the business’s summary writing, even where the rightholder has not given consent to those acts?

(11)      What criteria should be used to assess whether temporary acts of reproduction have “independent economic significance” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29) if the other conditions laid down in the provision are satisfied?

(12)      Can the user’s efficiency gains from temporary acts of reproduction be taken into account in assessing whether the acts have “independent economic significance” (see Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29)?

(13)      Can the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduction, and the storing and possible printing out of part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, without the rightholder’s consent be regarded as constituting “certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation” of the newspaper articles and “not unreasonably [prejudicing] the legitimate interests of the rightholder” (see Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29)?’

 The questions referred for a preliminary ruling

 Preliminary observation

27      It should be noted as a preliminary point that the need for uniform application of Community law and the principle of equality require that where provisions of Community law make no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining their meaning and scope, as is the case with Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, they must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Community (see, in particular, Case C‑245/00 SENA [2003] ECR I‑1251, paragraph 23, and Case C-306/05 SGAE [2006] ECR I‑11519, paragraph 31).

28      Those considerations are of particular importance with respect to Directive 2001/29, in the light of the wording of recitals 6 and 21 in the preamble to that directive.

29      Consequently, the Austrian Government cannot successfully contend that it is for the Member States to provide the definition of the concept of ‘reproduction in part’ in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 (see, to that effect, with respect to the concept of ‘public’ as referred to in Article 3 of the same directive, SGAE, paragraph 31).

 The first question

30      By its first question, the national court asks, essentially, whether the concept of ‘reproduction in part’ within the meaning of Directive 2001/29 is to be interpreted as meaning that it encompasses the storing and subsequent printing out on paper of a text extract consisting of 11 words.

31      It is clear that Directive 2001/29 does not define the concept of either ‘reproduction’ or ‘reproduction in part’.

32      In those circumstances, those concepts must be defined having regard to the wording and context of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, where the reference to them is to be found and in the light of both the overall objectives of that directive and international law (see, to that effect, SGAE, paragraphs 34 and 35 and case-law cited).

33      Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 provides that authors have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit reproduction, in whole or in part, of their works. It follows that protection of the author’s right to authorise or prohibit reproduction is intended to cover ‘work’.

34      It is, moreover, apparent from the general scheme of the Berne Convention, in particular Article 2(5) and (8), that the protection of certain subject-matters as artistic or literary works presupposes that they are intellectual creations.

35      Similarly, under Articles 1(3) of Directive 91/250, 3(1) of Directive 96/9 and 6 of Directive 2006/116, works such as computer programs, databases or photographs are protected by copyright only if they are original in the sense that they are their author’s own intellectual creation.

36      In establishing a harmonised legal framework for copyright, Directive 2001/29 is based on the same principle, as evidenced by recitals 4, 9 to 11 and 20 in the preamble thereto.

37      In those circumstances, copyright within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 is liable to apply only in relation to a subject-matter which is original in the sense that it is its author’s own intellectual creation.

38      As regards the parts of a work, it should be borne in mind that there is nothing in Directive 2001/29 or any other relevant directive indicating that those parts are to be treated any differently from the work as a whole. It follows that they are protected by copyright since, as such, they share the originality of the whole work.

39      In the light of the considerations referred to in paragraph 37 of this judgment, the various parts of a work thus enjoy protection under Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29, provided that they contain elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work.

40      With respect to the scope of such protection of a work, it follows from recitals 9 to 11 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 that its main objective is to introduce a high level of protection, in particular for authors to enable them to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their works, including at the time of reproduction of those works, in order to be able to pursue their creative and artistic work.

41      Similarly, recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 requires that the acts covered by the right of reproduction be construed broadly.

42      That requirement of a broad definition of those acts is, moreover, also to be found in the wording of Article 2 of that directive, which uses expressions such as ‘direct or indirect’, ‘temporary or permanent’, ‘by any means’ and ‘in any form’.

43      Consequently, the protection conferred by Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 must be given a broad interpretation.

44      As regards newspaper articles, their author’s own intellectual creation, referred to in paragraph 37 of this judgment, is evidenced clearly from the form, the manner in which the subject is presented and the linguistic expression. In the main proceedings, moreover, it is common ground that newspaper articles, as such, are literary works covered by Directive 2001/29.

45      Regarding the elements of such works covered by the protection, it should be observed that they consist of words which, considered in isolation, are not as such an intellectual creation of the author who employs them. It is only through the choice, sequence and combination of those words that the author may express his creativity in an original manner and achieve a result which is an intellectual creation.

46      Words as such do not, therefore, constitute elements covered by the protection.

47      That being so, given the requirement of a broad interpretation of the scope of the protection conferred by Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, the possibility may not be ruled out that certain isolated sentences, or even certain parts of sentences in the text in question, may be suitable for conveying to the reader the originality of a publication such as a newspaper article, by communicating to that reader an element which is, in itself, the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of that article. Such sentences or parts of sentences are, therefore, liable to come within the scope of the protection provided for in Article 2(a) of that directive.

48      In the light of those considerations, the reproduction of an extract of a protected work which, like those at issue in the main proceedings, comprises 11 consecutive words thereof, is such as to constitute reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, if that extract contains an element of the work which, as such, expresses the author’s own intellectual creation; it is for the national court to make this determination.

49      It must be remembered also that the data capture process used by Infopaq allows for the reproduction of multiple extracts of protected works. That process reproduces an extract of 11 words each time a search word appears in the relevant work and, moreover, often operates using a number of search words because some clients ask Infopaq to draw up summaries based on a number of criteria.

50      In so doing, that process increases the likelihood that Infopaq will make reproductions in part within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 because the cumulative effect of those extracts may lead to the reconstitution of lengthy fragments which are liable to reflect the originality of the work in question, with the result that they contain a number of elements which are such as to express the intellectual creation of the author of that work.

51      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that an act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination.

 Questions 2 to 12

52      If the acts at issue in the main proceedings do come within the concept of reproduction in part of a protected work within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, Articles 2 and 5 of that directive make it clear that such reproduction may not be made without the consent of the relevant author, unless that reproduction satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 5 of that directive.

53      In that context, by questions 2 to 12, the referring court asks, essentially, whether acts of reproduction occurring during a data capture process, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and, therefore, whether that process may be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders, since it is used to draw up summaries of newspaper articles and consists of scanning those articles in their entirety to produce a digital file, storing an extract of 11 words and then printing out that extract.

54      Under Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, an act of reproduction may be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 thereof only if it fulfils five conditions, that is, where

–        the act is temporary;

–        it is transient or incidental;

–        it is an integral and essential part of a technological process;

–        the sole purpose of that process is to enable a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary of a lawful use of a work or protected subject-matter; and

–        the act has no independent economic significance.

55      It must be borne in mind that those conditions are cumulative in the sense that non-compliance with any one of them will lead to the act of reproduction not being exempted pursuant to Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 of that directive.

56      For the interpretation of each of those conditions in turn, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the provisions of a directive which derogate from a general principle established by that directive must be interpreted strictly (Case C-476/01 Kapper [2004] ECR I-5205, paragraph 72, and Case C‑36/05 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I‑10313, paragraph 31).

57      This holds true for the exemption provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which is a derogation from the general principle established by that directive, namely the requirement of authorisation from the rightholder for any reproduction of a protected work.

58      This is all the more so given that the exemption must be interpreted in the light of Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29, under which that exemption is to be applied only in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

59      In accordance with recitals 4, 6 and 21 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) thereof must also be interpreted in the light of the need for legal certainty for authors with regard to the protection of their works.

60      In the present case, Infopaq claims, first, that the acts of reproduction at issue in the main proceedings fulfil the condition relating to transient nature, since they are deleted at the end of the electronic search process.

61      The Court finds, in the light of the third condition referred to in paragraph 54 of this judgment, that a temporary and transient act of reproduction is intended to enable the completion of a technological process of which it forms an integral and essential part. In those circumstances, given the principles set out in paragraphs 57 and 58 of this judgment, those acts of reproduction must not exceed what is necessary for the proper completion of that technological process.

62      Legal certainty for rightholders further requires that the storage and deletion of the reproduction not be dependent on discretionary human intervention, particularly by the user of protected works. There is no guarantee that in such cases the person concerned will actually delete the reproduction created or, in any event, that he will delete it once its existence is no longer justified by its function of enabling the completion of a technological process.

63      This finding is supported by recital 33 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 which lists, as examples of the characteristics of the acts referred to in Article 5(1) thereof, acts which enable browsing as well as acts of caching to take place, including those which enable transmission systems to function efficiently. Such acts are, by definition, created and deleted automatically and without human intervention.

64      In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that an act can be held to be ‘transient’ within the meaning of the second condition laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 only if its duration is limited to what is necessary for the proper completion of the technological process in question, it being understood that that process must be automated so that it deletes that act automatically, without human intervention, once its function of enabling the completion of such a process has come to an end.

65      In the main proceedings, the possibility cannot be ruled out at the outset that in the first two acts of reproduction at issue in those proceedings, namely the creation of TIFF files and text files resulting from the conversion of TIFF files, may be held to be transient as long as they are deleted automatically from the computer memory.

66      Regarding the third act of reproduction, namely the storing of a text extract of 11 words, the evidence submitted to the Court does not permit an assessment of whether the technological process is automated with the result that that file is deleted promptly and without human intervention from the computer memory. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the deletion of that file is dependent on the will of the user of the reproduction and whether there is a risk that the file might remain stored once the function of enabling completion of the technological process has come to an end.

67      It is common ground, however, that, by the last act of reproduction in the data capture process, Infopaq is making a reproduction outside the sphere of computer technology. It is printing out files containing the extracts of 11 words and thus reproduces those extracts on a paper medium.

68      Once the reproduction has been affixed onto such a medium, it disappears only when the paper itself is destroyed.

69      Moreover, since the data capture process is apparently not likely itself to destroy that medium, the deletion of that reproduction is entirely dependent on the will of the user of that process. It is not at all certain that he will want to dispose of the reproduction, which means that there is a risk that the reproduction will remain in existence for a longer period, according to the user’s needs.

70      In those circumstances, the Court finds that the last act in the data capture process at issue in the main proceedings, during which Infopaq prints out the extracts of 11 words, is not a transient act within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.

71      There is, moreover, nothing in the case-file submitted to the Court – and nor has it been pleaded – that such an act is liable to be incidental in nature.

72      It follows from the foregoing that that act does not fulfil the second condition laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29; accordingly, such an act cannot be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 thereof.

73      It follows that the data capture process at issue in the main proceedings cannot be carried out without the consent of the rightholders and, consequently, it is not necessary to consider whether the four acts which make up that process fulfil the other conditions laid down in Article 5(1).

74      Consequently, the answer to questions 2 to 12 is that the act of printing out an extract of 11 words, during a data capture process such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fulfil the condition of being transient in nature as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and, therefore, that process cannot be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders.

 Question 13

75      In the light of the answer given to questions 2 to 12, it is not necessary to answer question 13.

 Costs

76      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

1.      An act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 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, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination.

2.      The act of printing out an extract of 11 words, during a data capture process such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fulfil the condition of being transient in nature as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and, therefore, that process cannot be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders.

7.4 Infopaq (SUMMARY) 7.4 Infopaq (SUMMARY)

Case C-5/08

Infopaq International A/S

v

Danske Dagblades Forening

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret)

(Copyright – Information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Articles 2 and 5 – Literary and artistic works – Concept of ‘reproduction’ – Reproduction ‘in part’ – Reproduction of short extracts of literary works – Newspaper articles – Temporary and transient reproductions – Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out)

Summary of the Judgment

1.        Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Right of reproduction – Reproduction in part – Concept

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 2(a))

2.        Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Right of reproduction – Exceptions and limitations – Conditions – Transient nature of the act of reproduction

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 5(1))

1.        An act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination.

Copyright within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 is liable to apply only in relation to a subject-matter which is original in the sense that it is its author’s own intellectual creation. As regards the parts of a work, they are protected by copyright since, as such, they share the originality of the whole work. The various parts of a work thus enjoy protection under that provision, provided that they contain elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work. Given the requirement of a broad interpretation of the scope of the protection conferred by Article 2 of that directive, the possibility may not be ruled out that certain isolated sentences, or even certain parts of sentences in the text in question, may be suitable for conveying to the reader the originality of a publication such as a newspaper article, by communicating to that reader an element which is, in itself, the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of that article. Such sentences or parts of sentences are, therefore, liable to come within the scope of the protection provided for in Article 2(a) of that directive.

(see paras 37-39, 47-48, 51, operative part 1)

2.        The act of printing out an extract of 11 words, during a data capture process consisting in scanning of newspaper articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out, does not fulfil the condition of being transient in nature as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and, therefore, that process cannot be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders.

An act can be held to be ‘transient’ within the meaning of the second condition laid down in that provision only if its duration is limited to what is necessary for the proper completion of the technological process in question, it being understood that that process must be automated so that it deletes that act automatically, without human intervention, once its function of enabling the completion of such a process has come to an end. However, by the last act of reproduction in the data capture process, a reproduction is made outside the sphere of computer technology by printing out files containing the extracts of 11 words and thus reproduces those extracts on a paper medium. Once the reproduction has been affixed onto such a medium, it disappears only when the paper itself is destroyed. Moreover, since the data capture process is apparently not likely itself to destroy that medium, the deletion of that reproduction is entirely dependent on the will of the user of that process. It is not at all certain that he will want to dispose of the reproduction, which means that there is a risk that the reproduction will remain in existence for a longer period, according to the user’s needs. In those circumstances, the last act in the data capture process, during which the extracts of 11 words are printed out, is not a transient act within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.

(see paras 64, 67-70, 74, operative part 2)

7.5 ECJ, Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others, C-360-13, June 5, 2014 7.5 ECJ, Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others, C-360-13, June 5, 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

5 June 2014 (*)

(Copyright — Information Society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(1) and (5) — Reproduction — Exceptions and limitations — Creation of copies of an internet site on-screen and in the cache of the hard disk in the course of browsing the internet — Temporary act of reproduction — Transient or incidental act — Integral and essential part of a technological process — Lawful use — Independent economic significance)

In Case C‑360/13,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom), made by decision of 24 June 2013, received at the Court on 27 June 2013, in the proceedings

Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd

v

Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of L. Bay Larsen, President of the Chamber, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), A. Prechal and K. Jürimäe, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Szpunar,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd, by M. Hart, Solicitor,

–        Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others, by S. Clark, Solicitor,

–        the United Kingdom Government, by L. Christie, acting as Agent,

–        the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by M. Santoro, avvocato dello Stato,

–        the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent,

–        the European Commission, by J. Samnadda, acting as Agent,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(1) 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 request has been made in proceedings between Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd (‘the PRCA’) and Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others (‘the NLA’) concerning the obligation to obtain authorisation from the copyright holders for the viewing of websites where this involves copies of those sites being made on the user’s computer screen and in the internet cache of that computer’s hard disk.

 Legal context

 EU law

3        Recitals 5, 9, 31 and 33 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 are worded as follows:

‘(5)      Technological development has multiplied and diversified the vectors for creation, production and exploitation. While no new concepts for the protection of intellectual property are needed, the current law on copyright and related rights should be adapted and supplemented to respond adequately to economic realities such as new forms of exploitation.

…

(9)      Any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must take as a basis a high level of protection, since such rights are crucial to intellectual creation. …

…

(31)      A fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matter, must be safeguarded. …

…

(33)      The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process and carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made. The acts of reproduction concerned should have no separate economic value on their own. To the extent that they meet these conditions, this exception should include acts which enable browsing as well as acts of caching to take place, including those which enable transmission systems to function efficiently, provided that the intermediary does not modify the information and does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information. A use should be considered lawful where it is authorised by the rightholder or not restricted by law.’

4        Article 2(a) of that directive states:

‘Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:

(a)      for authors, of their works …’.

5        Under Article 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001/29:

‘1.      Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental, which are an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:

(a)      a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or

(b)      lawful use

of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

…

5.      The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.’

 United Kingdom law

6        Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 was transposed into national law by section 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

7        The PRCA is an association of public relations professionals. Those professionals use the media monitoring service offered by the Meltwater group of companies (‘Meltwater’), which makes available to them, online, monitoring reports on press articles published on the internet, those reports being compiled on the basis of key words provided by the customers.

8        The NLA is a body set up by the publishers of newspapers in the United Kingdom for the purpose of providing collective licensing of newspaper content.

9        The NLA took the view that Meltwater and its customers were required to obtain authorisation from the copyright holders for, respectively, providing and receiving the media monitoring service.

10      Meltwater agreed to enter into a web database licence. The PRCA, however, maintained that the online receipt of the monitoring reports by Meltwater’s customers not require a licence.

11      Seised of the dispute, the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, and the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) held that the members of the PRCA were required to obtain a licence or consent from the NLA in order to receive Meltwater’s service.

12      The PRCA brought an appeal against that decision before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, claiming, in particular, that its members do not need authorisation from rights holders when they confine themselves to viewing the monitoring reports on Meltwater’s website.

13      The NLA contended that that activity requires the authorisation of the copyright holders, in so far as viewing the website leads to copies being made on the user’s computer screen (‘the on-screen copies’) and in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk (‘the cached copies’). It contends that those copies constitute ‘reproductions’, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, that do not come within the exemption provided for in Article 5(1) of that directive.

14      The referring court observes that the proceedings before it concern the question whether internet users who view websites on their computers without downloading or printing them out are committing infringements of copyright by reason of the creation of on-screen copies and cached copies, unless they have the authorisation of the rights holders to make such copies.

15      In this connection, the referring court states, first of all, that when an internet user views a website on his computer, without downloading it, the technical processes involved require the copies in question to be made. The creation of those copies is the automatic result of browsing the internet and requires no human intervention other than the decision to access the website in question. The on-screen copies and the cached copies are retained only for the ordinary duration of the processes associated with internet usage. In addition, the deletion of those copies does not require any human intervention. It is true that the cached copies may be deleted deliberately by the internet user concerned. However, if the internet user does not do this, those copies are normally replaced by other content after a certain time, which depends on the capacity of the cache and the extent and frequency of internet usage by the internet user concerned.

16      Next, the referring court states that the on-screen copy is an essential part of the technology involved, without which the website cannot be viewed, and remains on the screen until the internet user moves away from the site in question. The internet cache is a universal feature inherent in current internet-browsing technology, without which the internet would be unable to cope with current volumes of online data transmission and would not function properly. The creation of on-screen copies and cached copies is therefore indispensable to the correct and efficient operation of the technical processes involved in internet browsing.

17      Lastly, the referring court points out that, ordinarily, when an internet user browses the internet, he does not set out to make a copy of the image unless he chooses to download it or to print it out. His aim is to view the content of the website selected. The on-screen copies and the cached copies are therefore merely the incidental consequence of the use of his computer to view a website.

18      In the light of those considerations, the referring court concluded that on-screen copies and cached copies satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29. None the less, a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court would, it found, be desirable for the purpose of ensuring the uniform application of EU law throughout the territory of the European Union.

19      In this connection, it explains that it is uncertain as to whether those copies are temporary, whether they are transient or incidental in nature and whether they are an integral part of the technological process. By contrast, it takes the view that such copies are bound to satisfy the other conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.

20      In those circumstances, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘In circumstances where:

–        an end-user views a web-page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it;

–        copies of that web-page are automatically made on screen and in the internet “cache” on the end-user’s [computer] hard disk;

–        the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing;

–        the screen copy remains on screen until the end-user moves away from the relevant web-page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;

–        the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end-user views further web-pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; and

–        the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to [in the fourth and fifth indents] continue;

are such copies (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC?’

 Consideration of the question referred

21      By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the on-screen copies and the cached copies made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, and, if so, whether those copies may be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.

 Preliminary observations

22      Under Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, an act of reproduction is exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 of that directive on condition that:

–        it is temporary;

–        it is transient or incidental;

–        it is an integral and essential part of a technological process;

–        its sole purpose is to enable a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and

–        it has no independent economic significance.

23      According to the case-law of the Court, the conditions set out above must be interpreted strictly, because Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 is a derogation from the general rule established by that directive that the copyright holder must authorise any reproduction of his protected work (Case C‑5/08 Infopaq International, EU:C:2009:465, paragraphs 56 and 57, and Joined Cases C‑403/08 and C‑429/08 Football Association Premier League and Others, EU:C:2011:631, paragraph 162).

24      None the less, it is apparent from that same case-law that the exemption provided for in that provision must allow and ensure the development and operation of new technologies, and safeguard a fair balance between the rights and interests of rights holders and of users of protected works who wish to avail themselves of those technologies (see Football Association Premier League and Others, EU:C:2011:631, paragraph 164).

 Whether the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 are satisfied

25      The referring court has stated that the on-screen copies and cached copies satisfy the fourth and fifth conditions set out in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29; accordingly, the present reference relates solely to whether the first three conditions are satisfied.

26      As regards the first condition, under which the act of reproduction must be temporary, it is apparent from the documents before the Court, first, that the on-screen copies are deleted when the internet user moves away from the website viewed. Secondly, the cached copies are normally automatically replaced by other content after a certain time, which depends on the capacity of the cache and on the extent and frequency of internet usage by the internet user concerned. It follows that those copies are temporary in nature.

27      In those circumstances, it must be held that those copies satisfy the first condition set out in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.

28      Under the third condition, which it is appropriate to examine in second place, the acts of reproduction in question must be an integral and essential part of a technological process. That condition requires that two criteria both be fulfilled, namely that, first, the acts of reproduction are carried out entirely in the context of the implementation of a technological process and, secondly, the completion of those acts of reproduction is necessary, in that the technological process could not function correctly and efficiently without those acts (seeInfopaq International, EU:C:2009:465, paragraph 61, and order in Case C‑302/10 Infopaq International, EU:C:2012:16, paragraph 30).

29      Concerning, first of all, the first of those two criteria, it should be pointed out that, in the case in the main proceedings, the on-screen copies and the cached copies are created and deleted by the technological process used for viewing websites, with the result that they are made entirely in the context of that process.

30      It is irrelevant, in this regard, that the process in question is activated by the internet user and that it is terminated by a temporary act of reproduction such as the on-screen copy.

31      It follows from the case-law of the Court that, since Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 does not specify at which stage of the technological process the acts of temporary reproduction are deemed to be carried out, it cannot be excluded that such acts can initiate or terminate that process (order Infopaq International, EU:C:2012:16, paragraph 31).

32      Furthermore, it is apparent from the case-law that Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 does not preclude the technological process from involving human intervention and, in particular, from being activated or completed manually (see, to that effect, order Infopaq International, EU:C:2012:16, paragraph 32).

33      It follows that the on-screen copies and the cached copies must be regarded as being an integral part of the technological process at issue in the main proceedings.

34      Next, as regards the second of the criteria mentioned in paragraph 28 above, it is apparent from the order for reference that, even if the process at issue in the main proceedings can be implemented without the acts of reproduction concerned taking place, the fact remains that, in those circumstances, the process cannot function correctly and efficiently.

35      According to the order for reference, the cached copies greatly facilitate browsing on the internet, since without those copies, the internet would be unable to cope with current volumes of data transmitted online. Without the creation of such copies, the process used for viewing websites would be considerably less efficient and would not be able to function properly.

36      Concerning the on-screen copies, it has not been disputed that, at present, the technology for the viewing of websites on computers requires such copies to be made if it is to function correctly and efficiently.

37      Consequently, the on-screen copies and the cached copies must be regarded as being an essential part of the technological process at issue in the main proceedings.

38      It follows that the two categories of copies satisfy the third condition laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.

39      The second condition, which it is appropriate to examine in third place, comprises alternative criteria. The act of reproduction must be either transient or incidental.

40      As regards the first of the two criteria, it should be recalled that an act will be held to be ‘transient’, in the light of the technological process used, if its duration is limited to what is necessary for that process to work properly, it being understood that that process must be automated inasmuch as it deletes such an act automatically, without human intervention, once its function of enabling the completion of such a process has come to an end (see, to that effect, Infopaq International, EU:C:2009:465, paragraph 64).

41      Nevertheless, the requirement of automatic deletion does not preclude such a deletion from being preceded by human intervention directed at terminating the use of the technological process. As stated in paragraph 32 above, it is permissible for the technological process at issue in the main proceedings to be activated and completed manually.

42      Therefore, contrary to what the NLA contends, an act of reproduction does not lose its transient nature merely because the deletion by the system of the copy generated is preceded by the intervention of the end-user designed to terminate the technological process concerned.

43      As regards the other criterion mentioned in paragraph 39 above, an act of reproduction can be regarded as ‘incidental’ if it neither exists independently of, nor has a purpose independent of, the technological process of which it forms part.

44      In the case in the main proceedings, as regards, first, the on-screen copies, it should be recalled that these are automatically deleted by the computer at the moment when the internet user moves away from the website concerned and, therefore, at the moment when he terminates the technological process used for viewing that site.

45      In this connection, it is irrelevant, contrary to what the NLA contends, that the on-screen copy remains in existence for as long as the internet user keeps his browser open and stays on the website concerned because, during that period, the technological process used for viewing that site remains active.

46      Accordingly, it must be held that the period during which the on-screen copies remain in existence is limited to what is necessary for the proper functioning of the technological process used for viewing the website concerned. Consequently, those copies must be regarded as ‘transient’.

47      Next, so far as concerns the cached copies, it is true that, unlike the on-screen copies, they are not deleted at the time when the internet user terminates the technological process used for viewing the website concerned, since they are retained in the cache for the purposes of a possible subsequent viewing of that site.

48      However, it is not necessary that such copies be categorised as ‘transient’ once it has been established that they are incidental in nature in the light of the technological process used.

49      In this connection, it should be pointed out, first, that the technological process in question wholly determines the purpose for which those copies are created and used, although, as is apparent from paragraph 34 above, that process can function, albeit less efficiently, without such copies being made. Secondly, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that internet users employing the technological process at issue in the main proceedings cannot create the cached copies outside of that process.

50      It follows that the cached copies neither exist independently of, nor have a purpose independent of, the technological process at issue in the main proceedings and must, for that reason, be regarded as ‘incidental’.

51      In those circumstances, it must be held that the on-screen copies and the cached copies satisfy the second condition laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.

52      In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that the copies at issue in the main proceedings satisfy the first three conditions set out in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29.

53      Nevertheless, in order for it to be possible to rely on the exception laid down in that provision, as interpreted in paragraph 52 above, those copies must also satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 (see, to that effect, Football Association Premier League and Others, EU:C:2011:631, paragraph 181).

 Whether the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 are satisfied

54      Under Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29, the carrying-out of a temporary act of reproduction is exempt from the reproduction right only in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holders.

55      In this connection, it should be stated, first of all, that, since the on-screen copies and the cached copies are created only for the purpose of viewing websites, they constitute, on that basis, a special case.

56      Next, although the copies make it possible, in principle, for internet users to access works displayed on websites without the authorisation of the copyright holders, the copies do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of those rights holders.

57      In this connection, it must be pointed out that the works are made available to internet users by the publishers of the websites, those publishers being required, under Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, to obtain authorisation from the copyright holders concerned, since that making available constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of that article.

58      The legitimate interests of the copyright holders concerned are thus properly safeguarded.

59      In those circumstances, there is no justification for requiring internet users to obtain another authorisation allowing them to avail themselves of the same communication as that already authorised by the copyright holder in question.

60      Lastly, it must be held that the creation of the on-screen copies and the cached copies does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the works.

61      In this connection, it should be pointed out that the viewing of websites by means of the technological process at issue represents a normal exploitation of the works which makes it possible for internet users to avail themselves of the communication to the public made by the publisher of the website concerned. Given that the creation of the copies in question forms part of such viewing, it cannot operate to the detriment of such an exploitation of the works.

62      It follows from the foregoing that the on-screen copies and the cached copies satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29.

63      In those circumstances, the answer to the question referred is that Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the on-screen copies and the cached copies made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.

 Costs

64      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.