«Fair use» for europe?: private international rather than substantive law
| Autor | Paul L. C. Torremans |
| Páginas | 369-387 |
ADI 32 (2011-2012): 369-388
«FAIR USE» FOR EUROPE?: PRIVATE
INTERNATIONAL RATHER
THAN SUBSTANTIVE LAW
Pa u l l. c. To r r e m a n S *
RESUMEN
Este artículo analiza el «fair dealing» del Derecho inglés como la alternativa más próxi-
ma en Europa al «fair use» norteamericano. En él se destacan las principales características
de la regulación del «fair dealing» y su comparación con aquellas del «fair use» norteame-
ricano. Resulta llamativo a este respecto que el «fair dealing» sólo resulta aplicable en
caso de que el uso de la obra protegida por derechos de autor se haga para determinados
propósitos muy acotados, e incluso en ese caso se halla sometido a un estricto régimen de
requisitos, o pre-requisitos, si se prefiere expresar de esa manera. Tan solo entonces puede
el Tribunal llevar a cabo un ejercicio discrecional de ponderación en torno a la justificación
del uso. Ello supone un severo contraste con el «fair use» norteamericano, que se basa
completamente en este ejercicio de ponderación por el Tribunal, limitándose el legislador
a sugerir algunos factores a tener en cuenta a la hora de llevar a cabo dicho ejercicio. Por
esta razón, incluso el modelo del Reino Unido supone un mero ejemplo de un conjunto de
excepciones y limitaciones específicas, con un margen muy estrecho. Desde esa perspec-
tiva, existe poca diferencia respecto del modelo tradicional del derecho continental Europeo
y, por tanto, avanzar hacia un «fair use» al estilo de los Estados Unidos supondría más
una revolución que una evolución, y existen dudas sobre si un cambio de esa naturaleza
resultaría productivo o siquiera posible. Sin embargo, desde una perspectiva de Derecho
internacional, privado parece claro que a los jueces de la Unión Europea se les podría exigir
la aplicación del «fair use» como parte de la ley aplicable en situaciones internacionales.
Además, el concepto de uso justificado podría ser aplicado de forma satisfactoria también
en nuestro sistema, a fin de introducir la flexibilidad que requiere la rápida evolución de la
tecnología. ¡Alcanzar la meta del uso justificado requiere sin duda una aproximación más
sutil que la simple copia del «fair use»!
Palabras clave: «Fair dealing», «fair use», Derecho internacional privado, UE, derecho
de autor.
ABSTRACT
This article looks at fair dealing in English law as the closest alternative to the US fair
use approach in Europe. In doing so it highlights the key characteristics of the fair dealing
approach and it then compares these to the key characteristics of the US fair use approach.
It is striking in this respect that fair dealing can only be applied if the dealing with the co-
pyright work is for certain well-identified purposes and even then the case is submitted to a
rigid set of requirements or pre-requisites if one wants to express it that way. Only then the
discretionary balancing exercise on the basis of fairness can be performed by the court.That
* Professor of Intellectual Property Law. School of Law. University of Nottingham. E-mail: Paul.
Torremans@nottingham.ac.uk.
ADI 32 (2011-2012).indb 369 18/9/12 12:33:01
370 PAUL L. C. TORREMANS. «Fair use»forEurope?:privateinternationalratherthan...
stands in stark contrast to the US fair use that is based entrirely on a balancing exercise by
the court, with the legislator merely suggesting a couple of factors that need to be taken into
account in that exercise. Even the UK approach is therefore merely an example of narrowly
cicrcumscribed specific exceptions and limitation. From that perspective there is little diffe-
rence with the traditional European civil law approach and as a result moving on to fair use,
US style, would be a revolution rather than an evolution It is doubtful whether such a change
would be productive or even possible. But from a private international law perspective it is
clear that EU judges might will be called upon to apply fair use as part of the applicable law
in inernational cases. And the concept of fairness might also be applied successfully in our
existing system in order to introduce the flexibility required by the fast evolving technology.
Achieving the goal of fairness requires therefore a more subtle approach than merely co-
pying fair use!
Keywords: Fair dealing, fair use, private international law, EU, copyright.
CONTENTS: I. INTRODUCTION.—II. FAIR DEALING, UK STYLE: 1. re S e a r c h a n d P r i V aT e S T u d y :
A. Research. B. Private study. C. How much can be taken? 2. re V i e W a n d c r i T i c i S m : A. The starting
point. B. Pro Sieben. C. Factors to be taken into account. D. How much can be taken? E. A work that is
available to the public. F. A summary of conditions. 3. re P o r T i n G c u r r e n T eV e n T S 4. a Fa i r co n c l u S i o n
o n Fa i r de a l i n G .—III. FAIR USE, US STYLE: 1. The To o l eX P l a i n e d . 2. a cr i T i c a l an a l y S i S .—IV. A
ROLE FOR PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: 1. ch o i c e o F l a W r u l e S a T T h e i n T e r n aT i o n a l l e V e l .
2. Th e naT i o n a l l e V e l . 3. Th e c h o i c e o F l a W r u l e : A. The creation of the right. B. The scope of the right.
C. Fair use.—V. CONCLUSION.
I. INTRODUCTION
Fair dealing, as it is known in the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Pa-
tents Act 1988, is often referred to as the second best thing in terms of
exceptions and limitations to copyright. Fair use, US style, being the rst
best thing. That ts in well with private international law, as its choice of
law approach is also by denition the second best thing. Harmonisation
of substantive (copyright) law being the rst best thing. This article will
therefore look at the options to and implications of upgrading the second
best fair dealing to fair use and whether that approach could be done at EU
level. And it will then address the other second best option, i. e., private
international law, to explore the options and risks there of an indirect in-
troduction of fair use.
II. FAIR DEALING, UK STYLE
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows «fair dealing»
with the work that attracts copyright. This means, roughly, that there will
be no copyright infringement if the use made of the work is fair. The defen-
ce only becomes relevant when the part taken from the work is substantial;
otherwise no copying arises in the rst place and any defence is without
purpose 1.
1 Contra, but with respect, arguably wrong. «Indeed once the conclusion is reached that the whole
or a substantial part of the copyright work has been taken, a defence under (the fair dealing provisions) is
unlikely to succeed»: Independent Television Publications Ltd v. Time Out Ltd (1984) FSR 64, per Whitford
J at 75. In this view, the defence would justify only insubstantial copying, but insubstantial copying is no
ADI 32 (2011-2012).indb 370 18/9/12 12:33:01
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba