|There are voting decisions |
that are more difficult than others to make
This blogger was and still is [more than ever] under the impression that the response should be in the sense that closed systems are no longer compatible with EU law.
This follows especially from the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-5/08 Infopaq [here], Case C-393/09 BSA [here], Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 FAPL [here], and Case C-145/10 Painer [here].
At the national level, also super-learned Mr Justice Arnold said [in his 2013 decision in SAS v WPL, at para 27] that:
"In the light of a number of recent judgments of the CJEU, it may be arguable that it is not a fatal objection to a claim that copyright subsists in a particular work that the work is not one of the kinds of work listed in section 1(1)(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents 1988 and defined elsewhere in that Act."
It seems, however, that 1709 Blog readers do not agree with this conclusion.
The 1709 Blog poll attracted 56 votes [thanks so much to all those who cast their precious vote!], and the results were as follows:
- 23 people (41%) thought that the CJEU has not yet been asked to rule on national systems of subject-matter categorisation;
- 22 people (39%) believed that the answer should be in the sense that we are now required to protect anything that is a 'work' if it displays sufficient originality;
- Finally, 11 voters (19%) held the opinion that it all depends on whether the CJEU wants to have a particular work (eg a graphic user interface) protected by copyright.