Scholarlink

<p><OrderedList><ListItem><ItemNumber>1.</ItemNumber><ItemContent><p>Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that there is no relationship of rule and exception between design protection and copyright protection, such that, when assessing the originality of subject matter of applied art, it is necessary to apply stricter requirements than are laid down for other types of works.</p></ItemContent></ListItem><ListItem><ItemNumber>2.</ItemNumber><ItemContent><p>Article 2(a), Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that subject matter which reflects the personality of its author as an expression of his or her free and creative choices constitutes a work, for the purposes of those provisions. Choices dictated by various constraints, particularly technical, which bound that author during the creation of that subject matter are not free and creative, and nor are choices which, while free, do not bear the imprint of the author’s personality by giving that subject matter a unique appearance. Circumstances such as the author’s intentions during the creative process, his or her sources of inspiration and the use of shapes that are already available, the likelihood of a similar independent creation or the recognition of that subject matter in professional circles may be taken into account where appropriate, but are not, in any event, necessary or decisive for the purpose of establishing the originality of the subject matter for which protection is claimed.</p></ItemContent></ListItem><ListItem><ItemNumber>3.</ItemNumber><ItemContent><p>Article 2(a), Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that in order to establish a copyright infringement, it is necessary to determine whether creative elements of the protected work have been reproduced in a recognisable manner in the allegedly infringing subject matter. The same overall visual impression created by the two subject matters at issue and the degree of originality of the work concerned are irrelevant. The possibility of a similar creation cannot justify a refusal to grant protection.</p></ItemContent></ListItem></OrderedList></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“Mio/konektra”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月7日

查看全文

摘要

1.

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that there is no relationship of rule and exception between design protection and copyright protection, such that, when assessing the originality of subject matter of applied art, it is necessary to apply stricter requirements than are laid down for other types of works.

2.

Article 2(a), Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that subject matter which reflects the personality of its author as an expression of his or her free and creative choices constitutes a work, for the purposes of those provisions. Choices dictated by various constraints, particularly technical, which bound that author during the creation of that subject matter are not free and creative, and nor are choices which, while free, do not bear the imprint of the author’s personality by giving that subject matter a unique appearance. Circumstances such as the author’s intentions during the creative process, his or her sources of inspiration and the use of shapes that are already available, the likelihood of a similar independent creation or the recognition of that subject matter in professional circles may be taken into account where appropriate, but are not, in any event, necessary or decisive for the purpose of establishing the originality of the subject matter for which protection is claimed.

3.

Article 2(a), Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that in order to establish a copyright infringement, it is necessary to determine whether creative elements of the protected work have been reproduced in a recognisable manner in the allegedly infringing subject matter. The same overall visual impression created by the two subject matters at issue and the degree of originality of the work concerned are irrelevant. The possibility of a similar creation cannot justify a refusal to grant protection.