Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Copyright, Property and the Social Contract pp 157–180Cite as

Digitising the Public Domain: Non Original Photographs in Comparative EU Copyright Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions’ collections and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes can trigger forms copyright and copyright-related protection under EU law. Whereas the study will also look at the originality requirement for copyright protection in the digitisation of physical items, the main objective lies elsewhere, namely in forms of protection for non-original photographs. In fact, in some EU Member States (MS) a dedicated related (or neighbouring) right to copyright is available for the protection of “other photographs” that is to say photographs which are not original. The chapter’s working hypothesis postulates that in a vast majority of situations digitisation processes do not attract, nor should attract, any form of protection based on copyright and related rights. Nonetheless, in some limited cases, protection afforded by copyright and by the neighbouring right protecting “other” photographs may be available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The focus of the chapter is on the digitisation of “texts” (including books, newspapers, letters, manuscripts, etc.), “images” (including paintings, drawings, maps, photos, etc.), and “objects” (including statues, sculptures, vases, coins, etc.). Importantly, the chapter concentrates on the copyright or copyright related status of digitised items individually considered and therefore the issue of whether the digitised collection can trigger database rights (copyright or sui generis) is out of scope. This article is based on a study on the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions’ collections; for details, including methodology, national correspondents and online maps, http://outofcopyright.eu/rights-after-digitisation/. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  2. 2.

    For a detailed analysis of the originality issue in relation to digitisation processes, see Margoni (2014) Study on the digitisation of cultural heritage originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs, http://outofcopyright.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/digitisation_cultural_heritage-thomas-margoni.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  3. 3.

    Cultural heritage institutions’ ability to digitise their collections is largely based on the public domain status of the latter. When the copyright, or at least the rights of economic exploitation, elapse, acts such as those here under scrutiny can be performed without the need to secure authorisation. Alternatively, when the items forming the collections are protected by copyright or related rights to copyright two possibility are available: relying on fair use/dealing or other Exceptions or Limitations to Copyright (ELC) or seek the authorisation of the copyright holder; additionally, in a growing number of countries specific legislation on “orphan works” has been enacted.

  4. 4.

    Authorisations required on a legal basis other than the one identified in the research question are not considered in this study, although they may represent an impediment to digitisation projects. In particular, claims based on database rights (copyright and sui generis), unfair competition, misappropriation, PPP agreements and other special forms of protection are outside the scope of this study. An example of special forms of protection are “Cultural Heritage Codes” requiring the authorisation of the competent Ministry for acts such as reproductions of items listed as cultural heritage. The functioning of these codes, considerations related to the fact that they may reintroduce a copyright-like forms of protection for public domain works not contemplated by the aquis communautaire, and whether this is a power resting with MS or it has been pre-empted by EU copyright law are also not discussed in this chapter. For an account regarding the basic traits of the Italian and Greek Cultural Heritage Codes, see Morando (2011), Diritti sui beni culturali e licenze libere (ovvero, di come un decreto ministeriale può far sparire il pubblico dominio in un paese) (Cultural Heritage Rights and Open Licenses (i.e. How a Ministerial Decree Can Obliterate the Public Domain in a Country) (June 9, 2011), Quaderni del Centro Studi Magna Grecia, Università degli Studi di Napoli, Federico II, 2011, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2148343.

  5. 5.

    For an analysis of the relationship between Cultural Heritage Institutions, the Public Domain and Public Sector Information, see Kelleret al. (2014), pp. 1–9.

  6. 6.

    Pekel (2014), Democratising the Rjiksmuseum - Why did the Rijksmuseum make available their highest quality material without restrictions, and what are the results? Europeana Case Study, http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/Democratising%20the%20Rijksmuseum.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  7. 7.

    See http://www.europeana.eu.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute. Accessed 28 April 2017; and the recent dispute between Wikimedia Foundation and Reiss Engelhorn Museum over public domain works of art: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/23/lawsuit-public-domain-art/. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  9. 9.

    See the Report on the Implementation of Commission Recommendation 2011/711/EU - Progress Report 2011–2013 of September 2014 “Digitisation, online accessibility and digital preservation”, available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/european-commissions-report-digitisation-online-accessibility-and-digital-preservation-cultural, at 22.

  10. 10.

    Id. For an analysis of the value of public domain photographs available on websites such as wikipedia, see Healdet al. (2015), pp. 1–32.

  11. 11.

    See High Level Expert Group on Digital Libraries Sub-group on Public Private Partnerships, Final Report on Public Private Partnerships for the Digitisation and Online Accessibility of Europe’s Cultural Heritage, May 2008.

  12. 12.

    See Margoni (2016).

  13. 13.

    It can be found here in Margoni (2014), available at http://outofcopyright.eu/rights-after-digitisation/.

  14. 14.

    This does not mean that under specific circumstances remedies based on other causes of action, such as unfair competition, misappropriation, breach of confidence, or sometimes even trade marks, are excluded. However, their eventual availability is not strictly related with the originality, or lack thereof, in the acts of digitisation and is therefore outside the scope of the present study.

  15. 15.

    Additional material and references relating to the present study such as a list of national correspondents, the questionnaire employed and graphical representations of the results can be found at http://outofcopyright.eu/rights-after-digitisation/. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  16. 16.

    The results of the questionnaires were of fundamental assistance in the completion of the study. Furthermore, correspondents contributed by providing documents that were not available in English or in the other languages known to the author. Where correspondents have provided specific documents and helped with translations, this is acknowledged in the study. That being said, all the possible mistakes are the responsibility of the author alone.

  17. 17.

    See Margoni (2014).

  18. 18.

    Case C-145/10 of 1 December 2011, Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard Verlags GmbH and others, (CJEU) ECLI:EU:C:2011:798.

  19. 19.

    The earliest still surveying camera photograph, View from the Window at Le Gras, dates back to 1826; See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  20. 20.

    See Bently and Sherman (2014), p. 95; Bettink (1989), p. 37; Deazley (2010), p. 293; Garnett (2000), p. 229; Gendreau et al. (1999); Hughes (2011–2012), p. 419.

  21. 21.

    To the first category of countries belong France and the UK, while to the second Germany; See Ricketson S., International Conventions, in Gendreau et al. (1999), p. 18.

  22. 22.

    See Ricketson S., International Conventions, in Gendreau et al. (1999), p. 19.

  23. 23.

    Id., at 22.

  24. 24.

    See Art. 7(4) Berne Convention.

  25. 25.

    See Art. 9 WIPO Copyright Treaty.

  26. 26.

    Regarding the harmonisation of the term of protection of copyright in the EU see generally Angelopoulos (2012).

  27. 27.

    See Ricketson S., International Conventions, in Gendreau et al. (1999), cit., p. 25.

  28. 28.

    See Recital 16 and Art. 6 Directive 2006/116/EC (codified version).

  29. 29.

    See Painer (C-145/10, 1st December 2011), at 90.

  30. 30.

    Id., at 91.

  31. 31.

    Id.

  32. 32.

    Id.

  33. 33.

    Id., at 92. See for a comparison the U.S. Supreme Court case Burrow-Giles Lithographic v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).

  34. 34.

    Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, plus Iceland and Norway; see infra Annex.

  35. 35.

    Norway however requires 15 years p.m.a., but at least 50 years from creation.

  36. 36.

    See Walter M., Austria, in Gendreau et al. (1999), p. 49.

  37. 37.

    Dietz suggests that the two standards, the German “personal intellectual creation” and the EU “author’s own intellectual creation”, are equivalent; See Dietz A., Germany, in Geller and Bently, 2[1][b].

  38. 38.

    See Art. 72(1) UhrG.

  39. 39.

    See Wiebe A., Schutz der Lichtbilder, in Spindler and Schuster (2011), p. 1693.

  40. 40.

    See Art. 72(3) UhrG.

  41. 41.

    See Wiebe A., Schutz der Lichtbilder, cit., at 1693.

  42. 42.

    Id.; See also Case I ZR 55/97 (German Federal Supreme Court, BGH), of 3.11.1999, in MMR 2000, 218.

  43. 43.

    See Case I ZR 55/97 (German Federal Supreme Court) of 3.11.1999 (Schutz von Lichtbildwerken), in MMR 2000, 218 (the Court, relying on previous case law, employed the expression “ein Mindestmaß an persönlicher geistiger Leistung” as opposed to the formula found in Art. 2 “persönliche geistige Schöpfungen”).

  44. 44.

    See in this sense Case I ZR 14/88 (German Federal Supreme Court, BGH), of 08.11.1989 (erstellung und Vertrieb einer Bibelreproduktion), in NJW-RR 1990, 1061 (excluding protection as simple photographs in case of mere duplication lacking any minimum of personal intellectual input).

  45. 45.

    See Lucas A., Kamina P., Austria, in Geller and Bently (2013), at 2[2][b].

  46. 46.

    For an account documenting a legislative initiative to introduce a form of protection for, inter alia, non original photographs, see Le Stanc (1992), pp. 438–444.

  47. 47.

    See Court of Appeal of Paris 5 May 2000, in RIDA 2001, n. 188, at 352; See Markellou (2013), pp. 369–372.

  48. 48.

    “[…] la nature de l’éclairage et de l’angle de prise de vue adoptés pour faire ressortir au mieux les couleurs et les volumes de la sculputre temoignent d’un choix personnel du photographe et portent l’empreinte de sa personalite”; See Court of Appeal of Paris 5 May 2000, in RIDA 2001, n. 188, at 352, at 356.

  49. 49.

    See French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) of 12 January 1994, n. 91-15718.

  50. 50.

    See Cour de Cassation of 14 November 2000, n. 98-18741.

  51. 51.

    See TGI Paris, 6 Oct. 2009, RIDA, 2010, no. 226, 506.

  52. 52.

    Id., at 508; In a similar direction see Cour de Cassation 1 March 1988, n. 86-12213, denying protection for shots of a technician.

  53. 53.

    See Cour de Cassation, 20 October 2011, n. 10-21251.

  54. 54.

    Confront this standard with the one employed by the Patent County Court in Temple Island Collections Ltd v. New English Teas Ltd, [2012] EWPCC 1, discussed below. See also case C 5/08 Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening (CJEU) of 2009, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465.

  55. 55.

    See High Court of First Instance of Paris, 30 November 2010, No. 09/04437 cited in Spitz (2015), p. 15.

  56. 56.

    See Court of Appeal of Paris, decision of 26 June 2013, No. 10/24329, cited in Spitz (2015), p. 15.

  57. 57.

    See Art.10(1)(h) TRLPI.

  58. 58.

    See Art.128 TRLPI.

  59. 59.

    See Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo), 5 April 2011, n. 214/2011, which denied protection to photographs of food products taken for a food catalogue arguing that they lack the minimal amount of creativity required to meet the standard of “original creation”: in “the technique of “painting with light” which is very common in professional food catalogue professional photographers do not meet the standards of creativity and originality, and therefore the available protection is that of “mere photographs”; See also Tribunal Supremo, 24 June 2004, n. 542/2004.

  60. 60.

    See Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo), 29 March 1996, n. STS 7969/1996 (ECLI:ES:TS:1996:7969).

  61. 61.

    See Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Audienica Provincial) of 29 July 2005, n. SAP B 7715/2005 (ECLI:ES:APB:2005:7715) [Enciclopedia Catalana]. In the same sense, other rulings by the same court: Court of Appeal of Barcelona 20 December 2004, n. SAP B 15228/2004 (ECLI:ES:APB:2004:15228) [El Mundo de los Insectos] denying copyright protection to some photos of butterflies regardless of the technical effort and precision (lighting, angle, etc.) involved in taking them. Similarly, denying moral rights protection to mere photographs done by a free-lance photographer for a newspaper, see Spanish Supreme Court 31 December 2002, n. STS 8943/2002 (ECLI:ES:TS:2002:8943) [Diario ABC].

  62. 62.

    See Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo), 7 June 1995, n. STS 3284/1995 (ECLI:ES:TS:1995:3284).

  63. 63.

    See Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Audiencia Provincial), September 10, 2003, n. SAP B 4681/2003 (ECLI:ES:APB:2003:4681) [Cabo de Creus]. In this case, the photos had been published by a newspaper without mentioning the name of the author (a well-known professional who had received several distinctions and awards for his professional work and had also published a manual on photography).

  64. 64.

    See Art. 128 TRLPI.

  65. 65.

    See Spanish Supreme Court 31 December 2002, n. STS 8943/2002 (ECLI:ES:TS:2002:8943) [Diario ABC] denying any infringement for the publication of some mere photographs without mentioning the author’s name.

  66. 66.

    See Bercovitz A., Bercovitz G., Corral M., Spain, in Geller and Bently (2013), cit. 9[1][a][v]; Xalabarder R., in Hilty and Nérisson (2012), p. 930.

  67. 67.

    See Art.129.2 TRLPI. This aspect has been suggested by the Spanish correspondent prof. Raquel Xalabarder.

  68. 68.

    See Commercial Court of Madrid (Juzgado de lo Mercantil) of 14 June 2005, n. AC/20051078 [Libro de Horas de Carlos V].

  69. 69.

    See Law (Decree of the President of the Republic, d.p.r.) 8 January 1979, n.19 amending the Italian Copyright Act. At the basis of the reform there was the consideration that the term of protection of 20 years (instead of the 25 year term mandated by Berne) and the absence of moral rights recognition was not in full compliance with Italy’s international obligations; See generally Autieri et al. (2012), p. 568. Under the old Copyright Act of 1865 photographs were not protected until a 1925 legislative reform that recognised them as a copyright subject matter, but limited their protection to 20 years; See Marchetti and Ubertazzi (2012), p. 1338.

  70. 70.

    See Marchetti and Ubertazzi (2012), p. 1338.

  71. 71.

    Id.

  72. 72.

    Id.

  73. 73.

    See Greco and Vercellone (1974), p. 385; Fabiani (1969), p. 529, Court of first instance of Florence (Trib. Firenze), 16 February 1994, in Dir. Aut., n. 3, 1994, 480.

  74. 74.

    See Autieri et al. (2012), cit., p. 568; Marchetti and Ubertazzi (2012), cit., p. 1338.

  75. 75.

    See above Part 1.

  76. 76.

    See Marchetti and Ubertazzi (2012), cit., p. 1662.

  77. 77.

    See Ubertazzi (1998), p. 50. In case law, Court of first instance of Milan (Tribunale Milano) 9 November 2000, in AIDA, 2002, 831; Court of first instance of Rome (Trib. Roma), 24 February 1998, in Dir. Inf., 1998, 793.

  78. 78.

    See Court of first instance of Milan (Tribunale di Milano), specialized section in intellectual property, of 11 October 2006, in IDA 08, 83 (holding that the photograph of a famous artist during a performance does not contain the personal input of the author).

  79. 79.

    See Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) 21 giugno 2000, n 8425, in AIDA 2000.

  80. 80.

    Id. According to a different approach the second paragraph of art. 87 excludes from protection all mechanical reproductions of material objects; See Sarti (2000), pp. 611–615. Yet another approach suggested that the mechanical process would generally exclude any exclusive right; See, Court of first instance of Milan (Trib. Milano), 7 September 2000, in AIDA 2001, 565.

  81. 81.

    In the case of a photograph of a work of art, although the Act remains silent at this regard.

  82. 82.

    Polish Supreme Court, 26 June 1998, I PKN 196/98, (reported and translated by the Polish national reporter).

  83. 83.

    Id.

  84. 84.

    While this criticism is certainly correct, it must also be noted that often—and in particular in difficult cases—Courts look at any possible factual basis in order to determine whether the results of the efforts of the photographer possess any additional creativity. Therefore, it is plausible that the intention of the author is evaluated as an historical antecedent that contributed to the achievement of said result; See Barta J., Markiewicz R., Poland, in Geller and Bently (2013), cit. at 2[3].

  85. 85.

    Id.

  86. 86.

    See Court of Appeal, Warsaw, July 5, 1995, I Acr 453/95, reported in Barta J., Markiewicz R., Poland, in Geller and Bently (2013), cit. at 2[3].

  87. 87.

    See Sec. 4(2) CDPA.

  88. 88.

    See Article 6 and Recital 16 Term Directive which indicate that no criteria other than that of “the author’s own intellectual creation reflecting his personality” can be applied to determining protection of photographic works, and aspects such as merit or purpose are explicitly excluded. On the other hand, the protection of other photographs is left to national law.

  89. 89.

    See Walter and von Lewinski (2010), at 8.6.12.

  90. 90.

    Bently and Sherman (2014), cit., p. 112.

  91. 91.

    See Bently and Sherman (2014), p. 108, also hypothetically admitting, but not supporting, the possibility that the old British originality standard can in fact survive—with the exception of databases—since it does not only protect original works, but also, in the light of the low standard, against unfair competition, which could be preserved also in areas of EU harmonisation.

  92. 92.

    See Cornish et al. (2013), cit., p. 444; Bently and Sherman (2014), p. 108.

  93. 93.

    See Temple Island Collections Ltd. v. New English Teas Ltd., [2012] EWPCC 1.

  94. 94.

    “At trial it was common ground that the impact of European Union law meant that the judgment of the CJEU in the Infopaq case (C-5/08 [2010] FSR 20) was such that copyright may subsist in a photograph if it is the author’s own “intellectual creation”. After trial it was also common ground that the recent judgement of the CJEU in the Painer case (C-145/10, 1st December 2011) was to the same effect and did not necessitate further submissions from the parties”, See Temple Island Collections Ltd. v. New English Teas Ltd., [2012] EWPCC 1, at 18. See Rosati (2011), pp. 795–817.

  95. 95.

    See Austrian Supreme Court (OGH), decision of 16 December 2003, n. 4 Ob 221/03h [Weinatlas].

  96. 96.

    For a detailed account of the case see Deazley (2010), pp. 292–331, 3, 293–331, citing the Graves’ Case [1868-69] L.R. 4 Q.B. 715 at 723.

  97. 97.

    See The Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (SDNY) 1999 (There are two judgements: On November 13 1998 Kaplan J. granted the defendant’s motion for a summary dismissal on the basis of UK law. The plaintiff successfully moved for reconsideration and re-argument. On 26 February 1999 Kaplan J. granted again summary dismissal of the case on the basis of US law).

  98. 98.

    See Deazley (2010), cit., p. 309. The interpretation given by the US Court to UK law is considered “probably wrong” by Cornish et al. (2013), cit., p. 444; See Garnett (2000), p. 229; Deazley (2001), p. 179; Stokes (2008), p. 272; Perry (2003), p. 696.

  99. 99.

    The Reject Shop Plc v Rober Manners [1995] F. S.R. 870, 876.

  100. 100.

    Id. See also Michalos (2004), pp. 3-019–3-020.

  101. 101.

    Antiquesportfolio.com Plc v Rodney Fitch & Co Ltd. [2001] E.C.D.R. 5.

  102. 102.

    Such as for instance “in the positioning of the object (unless it is a sphere), the angle at which it is taken, the lighting and the focus”, in “the instant photographs appear to have been taken with a view to exhibiting particular qualities, including the colour (in the case of some items), their features (e.g. the glaze in pottery) and, in the case of almost all the items, the details” or in the choice “of the particular item in order to find a typical example of a certain type of artefact, or a particularly fine example of a certain type of artefact”; id., at 33–36.

  103. 103.

    Id., at 31.

  104. 104.

    Id., at 33.

  105. 105.

    See Temple Island Collections Ltd. v. New English Teas Ltd., [2012] EWPCC 1, at 20.

  106. 106.

    See Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc. [1988] 3 All E.R. 949 at 972.

  107. 107.

    “Ultimately however the composition of the image can be the product of the skill and labour (or intellectual creation) of a photographer and it seems to me that skill and labour/intellectual creation directed to that end can give rise to copyright”; id., at 27.

  108. 108.

    See in this sense Nimmer and Nimmer (2014), at 2.08[E][1] and [2].

  109. 109.

    Spoor et al. (2005), p. 132.

  110. 110.

    See District Court Limburg, 9 April 2014 (Goudzwaard v Syzygy).

  111. 111.

    Dutch Supreme Court 9 March 1962 (Vitri).

  112. 112.

    Preliminary Court Breda, 8 April 2011 (Van de Rakt/Chasse Theater).

  113. 113.

    Preliminary Court Breda, 8 April 2011 (Van de Rakt/Chasse Theater), para. 7.5.

References

Journal Articles

  • Angelopoulos C (2012) The Myth of European term harmonisation: 27 public domains for 27 member states. Int Rev Intellect Prop Competition Law 43(5):567–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettink B (1989) Photography and the law of copyright. Int Rev Ind Prop Copyr Law 20:37

    Google Scholar 

  • Deazley R (2001) Photographing paintings in the public domain: a response to Garnett. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 23:179–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Deazley R (2010) Photography, copyright, and the South Kensington experiment. Intellect Prop Q 3:292–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabiani M (1969) La protezione delle fotografie nella legislazione nazionale e nella convenzione di Berna. Dir Aut 4:529

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett K (2000) Copyright in photographs. Eur Intellect Prop Rev:229

    Google Scholar 

  • Heald P, Erickson K, Kretschmer M (2015) The valuation of unprotected works: a case study of public domain photographs on Wikipedia. Harv Law Rev 29(1):1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes J (2011–2012) The Photographer’s copyright - photograph as art, photograph as database. Harv J Law Tech 25:419

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller P, Margoni T, Rybicka K, Tarkowski A (2014) Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions. IFOSS Law Rev 6(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Stanc C (1992) Intellectual property on Procrustes’ bed: observations on a French draft Bill for the protection of “reserved creations”. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 14(12):438–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Markellou M (2013) Appropriation art under copyright protection: recreation or speculation? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 35(7):369–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalos C (2004) The law of photography and digital images. London

    Google Scholar 

  • Morando F (2011) Diritti sui beni culturali e licenze libere (ovvero, di come un decreto ministeriale può far sparire il pubblico dominio in un paese) (Cultural Heritage Rights and Open Licenses (i.e. How a Ministerial Decree Can Obliterate the Public Domain in a Country) (June 9, 2011), Quaderni del Centro Studi Magna Grecia, Università degli Studi di Napoli, Federico II, 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2148343

  • Perry M (2003) Digital propertisation of the new artifacts: the application of technologies for “soft” representations of the physical and metaphysical. Cardozo J Int Comp Law 11:671

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2011) Originality in a work, or a work of originality: the effects of the Infopaq decision. J Copyr Soc USA 58:795–817

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarti D (2000) Questioni in tema di fotografie di oggetti materiali. Annali Italiani Del Diritto D’autore, Della Cultura E Dello Spettacolo 2000:611–615

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes S (2008) Art and copyright: some current issues. J Int Prop Law 1(4):272

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubertazzi LC (1998) La protezione delle fotografie, Dir. Autore: 50

    Google Scholar 

Books and Chapters

  • Autieri P, Floridia G, Mangini V, Olivieri G, Ricolfi M, Spada P (2012) Diritto industriale, properità intellettuale e concorrenza, 4th edn. Giappichelli, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Bently L, Sherman B (2014) Intellectual property law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish W, Llewelyn D, Aplin T (2013) Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks, and allied rights, 8th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller P, Bently L (2013) International copyright law and practice. Lexis Nexis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau Y, Nordemann R, Oesch R (1999) Copyright and photographs. An international survey. Kluwer Law International, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco P, Vercellone P (1974) I diritti sulle opere dell’ingegno. Giappichelli, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty R, Nérisson S (2012) Balancing copyright - a survey of national approaches, MPI studies on intellectual property and competition law 18. Springer VG, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti P, Ubertazzi L (2012) Commentario breve alle leggi su propreità intellettuale e concorrenza, 5th edn. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Margoni T (2016) The harmonisation of EU copyright law: the originality standard. In: Perry M (ed) Global governance of intellectual property in the 21st century. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimmer M, Nimmer D (2014) Nimmer on copyright. Matthew Bender, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G, Schuster F (2011) Recht der elektronischen Medien. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitz B (2015) Guide to copyright in France: business, internet and litigation. Kluwer Law International, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoor JH, Verkade DWF, Visser DJG (2005) Auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter M, von Lewinski S (2010) European copyright law: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Online Publications

Websites

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law – CREATe, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Thomas Margoni

Authors
  1. Thomas Margoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Margoni .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    John Gilchrist

  2. School of Law, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Brian Fitzgerald

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Margoni, T. (2018). Digitising the Public Domain: Non Original Photographs in Comparative EU Copyright Law. In: Gilchrist, J., Fitzgerald, B. (eds) Copyright, Property and the Social Contract. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95690-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95690-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95689-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95690-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation