IP Seminar

December 19,, 2008

LLD Research Topic:

“C
“Copyright
i h Li
Limitations
i i C
Contracted
dOOut:
Freedom of Contract vs. Copyright
py g Policy”
y

Academic
A d i AdAdvisor:
i SUZUKI Masabumi
M b i
Presenter: KORK Boren
Research Question:
Q

What should be pprioritized when

Freedom of Contract and Copyright
Policy clash together?
Specific
p Research Questions:
Q

1
1. How are Copyright Limitations vital to
Copyright Policy?
2. What happens when Copyright Limitations
are contracted away?
3. What should be the legal characteristic of
Copyright Limitations in the eyes of
Contract Law?
Purpose
p and Methodology:
gy

z Purpose: to argue that Provisions on

Copyright Limitations are vital to Copyright
Policy that they (some of them) should not be
overridden by the Freedom of Contract
z Methodology: Deductive and Inductive
Research based upon Comparative Studies
on Laws and Policies off the US,
S European
Union and Japan
Copyright
py g as a Public Policy:
y

z Ultimate
Ulti t G
Goall off C
Copyright
i ht L
Law:
Development of Culture
z Means to attain the Goal:
Encouragement and Dissemination
z Policy: Delicate Balance of Interests
Structure of Copyright
py g Law:

z E l i Ri
Exclusive Rights
ht
– Economic Rights (Reproduction Right,
Adaptation Right, Right to communicate
works to the Public)
– Moral Rights (Right of Disclosure, Right of
Paternity,
y, Right
g of Integrity)
g y)
Structure of Copyright
py g Law:

z C
Copyright
i ht Li
Limitations:
it ti
– Inherent Limitations (fixed term of protection,
requirement of originality, idea/expression
dichotomy, first sale doctrine)
– Exceptions to Exclusive Rights (reproduction
for private use, reproduction in libraries,
reproduction
d ti ffor educational
d ti l purpose,
quotation, reverse engineering, etc)
Facts:

z C
Copyright
i ht b
being
i expanded:
d d
– Article 20 of Berne Convention
– Relaxation of conditions for protection
(protection of information)
– Creation of new rights (suis generis right on
data base)
– Contraction of Free-Use Space (by contracts)
Facts:

z Contract
C t t as means to
t putt copyrighted
i ht d
works into use
– Copyright transaction
– Contracts of traditional form
– Contracts of standard form (shrink-wrap,
click wrap browse-wrap)
click-wrap, browse wrap)
Facts:

z W
Wrapping
i information
i f ti iin a contract
t t
– Copyrighted and un-copyrighted elements
wrapped together in one contract
– Restrictive terms ((limiting/prohibiting
gp g acts
that would be otherwise permitted by
copyright
py g law))
Facts:

z Enforceability of the wrapping contracts:

– Technological protection measures and
the legal protection thereof
– Validity upheld by Courts:
* ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1449
(
(7th Cir. 1996).
)
* Netwise v. NTS Computer, Rechtbank
Rotterdam, 5 December 2002.
Problems:

z Copyright excessively expanded

z Balance failed
z Users’ rights violated
z Public Domain shrunk
z Goal not attained
z Copyright functionality lapsed
Theories:

z F d
Freedom off Contract:
C t t
– Freedom to conclude or not conclude a
contract
– Freedom to choose the p
party
y to contract
– Freedom to determine the content of
contract
– Freedom to choose a form of contract
Theories

z Generall limits
G li it tto th
the F
Freedom
d off
Contract:
– Protection of fundamental rights
– Protection of public order
– Principle of good faith
Arguments:
g

z Structure
St t off copyright
i ht law
l revised
i db by
contracts
z Public ordering overridden by private
ordering
z Public policy spoiled by individual
interests
Arguments:
g

z Copyright Limitations regarded as rights of

the public (right to reproduce works for
private use
use, right to make quotation
quotation, fair-use
fair use
rights)
z Foundations of the Public’s
Public s Rights: principle
of democracy, freedom of expression, right to
get information,, right
g g to education
z Detrimental effects of making fair-use rights
alienable
Conclusion:

z Individual interests should be inferior to Public

interests
z Freedom of Contract should be subordinated to
Public Policy
z (Some) Copyright Limitations should be regarded as
Mandatory Rules that cannot be overridden by
contracts.
z Example of Belgium Copyright Law Article 23bis.
Consulted Documents:
z Jacques
q de Werra, Moving g Beyond
y the Conflict Between Freedom of Contract and
Copyright Policies: In Search of a New Global Policy for On-Line Information Licensing
Transactions: A Comparative Analysis Between U.S. Law and European Law, 25 Colum.
J.L. & Arts 239 (Winter 2003).
z Lucie M.C.R. Guibault, Copyright Limitations and Contracts, An Analysis of the Contractual
Overridability of Limitations on Copyright, Kluwer Law International (2002).
z Lucie Guibault, Wrapping Information in Contract: How does it affect the Public Domain?, in
Lucie Guibault and P. Bernt Hugenholtz (eds.), The Future of the Public Domain, Kluwer
Law International (2006) .
z Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses, 68 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1239
(July 1995)
1995).
z Maureen A. O’ Rourke, Drawing the Boundary between Copyright and Contract: Copyright
Preemption of Software Licenses Terms, 45 Duke L.J. 479 (December 1995).
z Niva Elkin-Koren, a Public Regarding Approach to Contracting over Copyrights, in
p
Expanding g the Boundaries of Intellectual Property,
p y, Oxford Universityy Press ((2001).
)
z Niva Elkin-Koren, Copyrights in Cyberspace – Rights Without Law? 73 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev.
1155 (1998).
z Pamela Samuelson, Challenges in Mapping the Public Domain, in Lucie Guilbault, the
Future of the Public Domain, Kluwer Law International (2006).
z Th
Thomas Fi
Finkelstein
k l t i and dDDouglas
l CC. W
Wyatt,
tt Sh
Shrinkwrap
i k Li
Licenses: C
Consequences off
Breaking a Seal, 71 St. John's L. Rev. 839 (Fall 1997).