Back in December last year, we reported –on this blog– on the legal vacuum left in the wake of the Spanish Supreme Court’s judgment declaring the system for financing private copying null and void. As you will recall, from 2012 to 2016 fair compensation for private copying was financed in Spain from the General State…

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law and the case has been discussed on the Kluwer Copyright Blog here. The CJEU held that EU law, particularly Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, precludes national legislation that subjects exemption from payment of the private copying levy for producers and importers of…

1. Introduction As reported previously on the Kluwer Copyright Blog, on 22 September 2016 the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’ or ‘Court’) ruled on Case C-110/15 (Microsoft Mobile Sales International and others Vs MIBACT and SIAE) regarding the private copying exception in Article 5.2 b of Directive 2001/29/EC (the ‘InfoSoc Directive’). The…

In response to a reference from the Spanish Supreme Court, the CJEU held that Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC must be interpreted as precluding a scheme for fair compensation for private copying like the Spanish system, which is financed from the General State Budget in such a way that it is not possible to ensure that…

In a judgment of 17 March 2016, the Cour de cassation, the French Supreme Court, ruled that the judicial courts are required to assess and award the remuneration for private copying in situations where one of the decisions of the Commission in charge of setting the fair compensation has been annulled. A full summary of…

1                Background, facts and questions On 9 June 2016 the CJEU ruled on Case C-470/14 – EGEDA and Others (‘EGEDA’). This marks the tenth occasion on which the Court has ruled on the private copying exception or limitation in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC (the ‘InfoSoc Directive’) after Padawan, Stichting de Thuiskopie, Luksan, VG Wort,…

By Martin Husovec, Tilburg University and Matej Gera, CIPPM, Bournemouth University Some will associate the year of 2016 with the year of the Fire Monkey or the monkey selfie. Not Slovak copyright scholars, whose government decided to engage in its own monkey business – an entirely new Copyright Act (Act No. 185/2015). Being the third…

Case C‑572/13, HP v. Reprobel, 12 November 2015 By Philippe Laurent and Céline Wulleman, Marx Van Ranst Vermeersch & Partners As we know, Member States may adopt exceptions to the reproduction right of authors in the cases and under the conditions listed in Article 5 of Directive 2001/29. Some of those exceptions may be transposed…

The Secretary of State’s decision to introduce section 28B of the CDPA 1988, which created an exception to copyright for personal private use without a mechanism for compensating rightholders, was found to be unlawful. The Secretary of State had introduced the provision on the basis that any harm caused to rightholders would be zero or…

An interesting case about the legality of a regulation issued by the Estonian Government on the “blank tape levy” The Estonian Authors’ Society, Estonian Performers’ Union and Estonian Association of Phonogram Producers (right holders’ collecting societies) filed a complaint in the administrative court claiming monetary damages (income loss) from the Government of the Republic of…