Tatiana Synodinou

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.

Brexit and European copyright law: some conclusions and delusions

by in Copyright
5096

Writing for the Kluwer Copyright Blog, Tatiana Synodinou, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Cyprus, looks at the implications of Brexit on European copyright law, and wonders if, with the UK's common law model out of the equation, could this be an opportunity for deeper integration and a step towards an EU copyright code?


The UK electorate’s vote to leave the European Union has been perceived as a bolt from the blue. After the initial shock, the potential legal and business implications of Brexit have been widely discussed. In the field of IP, the main concern has been to predict how UK IP business and law will be affected. How will the IP business of UK companies in Europe be affected? What will be the fate of UK copyright law?

Brexit’s “box” is reasonably feared as being able to bring great uncertainty and potential loss to the UK Pandora. Indeed, even if the more EU friendly Norwegian model of the EEA is finally adopted, UK copyright law will be seen as a faraway friend or, even worse, as a lone wolf which traces its own solitary route contrary to the unifying forces of the trans-border reality of a digital market.

But, another question is also worth discussing. What could Brexit bring to EU copyright law? Up until now, the EU harmonisation process has been hampered by the iconic divide between the civil law (the “droit d'auteur”) tradition and the common law vision of copyright, the most prominent representative of which has been the UK. In this context, EU copyright law has necessarily emerged through thorny and sometimes meaningless compromises between author-centered and market-centered approaches. Even though those divergences are in practice less flagrant than they appear, this conceptual split has impeded the harmonisation in domains where the differences are more striking, such as in the case of authorship, moral rights or copyright contracts. Therefore, the idea of EU copyright unification has been mainly seen as a long term perspective.

But, would it remain the same if UK copyright law did not have to be taken into consideration in the decision making process? Indeed, while it is very sad that UK citizens have chosen a solitary route, Brexit could be seen not only as a tragedy for Europe, but also as an opportunity for deeper integration in European Copyright law. Indeed, not having to take into account UK copyright rules and principles could theoretically facilitate the process of unification of EU copyright law. Even though other EU countries, such as Ireland and Cyprus, also embody the common law copyright tradition, the absence of the major player, the UK, will definitely be significant. So, is it possible that an EU Copyright Code, – more Europe- will be easier to achieve thanks to Europe’s failure to convince of its values and its legitimacy?

On the one hand, UK copyright law marginalization would a priori enable a more humanistic perception of copyright law to prevail: strong recognition and protection of moral rights (instead of minimum standards, a broad scope of protection covering also the distortion of the spirit of the work linked to the circumstances of its presentation together with an exclusion of the possibility of a waiver of moral rights), a stronger resale right, EU rules for the question of authorship (express recognition of the principle of the natural person of the author as initial copyright rightholder), restrictions on the transfer of copyright and principles enabling the authors to liberate themselves from abusive contractual clauses, a standard of fair and proportionate remuneration of authors (establishment of principles that link the remuneration of the author with the revenues coming from the exploitation of the work, such as a principle of an a priori proportionate remuneration for authors).

On the other hand, this viewpoint could be seen as doctrinal delusion, since it somehow forgets that, over the years , EU copyright law has gained a certain independence from national traditions. This autonomy has been many times affirmed by the CJEU. Indeed, EU copyright law has been built under the light of the internal market’s priorities. The logic of the market requires the easy and unhampered circulation of copyright and related rights protected subject matter instead of an emphasis on the personal sensitivities of authors. In other words, in an economic union, works of the mind are primarily seen as valuable self-directed assets which shall be commercialised easily in the single market and not as the extension of the personality of their authors and it is doubtful that this vision will dramatically change. In this context, the voluntary isolation of UK copyright law could be seen by some circles as an example to follow and, as a result, as a starting point for an inverse process of marginalization of EU copyright rules together with a growing emphasis on the legitimacy of the pluralism of national copyright particularities.

This article is reproduced here with kind permission of the Kluwer Copyright Blog.

Last modified on
0
Tatiana Synodinou is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Cyprus, specializing in copyright, online, media and intellectual property law. She has been a teacher and researcher at universities in Cyprus, Greece and France, is a research associate with the Kluwer Law International publishing house, in its ‘Kluwer EU IP Cases’ database, and a reporter for the Kluwer Copyright Blog.
  • No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

Leave your comment

Guest Friday, 20 October 2017