Comparative Copyright Protection Frameworks: Ireland, Uk, And Eu.
1. Introduction to Copyright Frameworks
Copyright protects original works of authorship such as literature, music, art, films, software, and more. While Ireland, the UK, and the EU share many principles due to common law and EU directives, there are important differences in:
Duration of copyright
Scope of protection (what qualifies as a work)
Exceptions and limitations (e.g., fair dealing vs. fair use)
Moral rights and economic rights
2. Ireland: Copyright Framework
Ireland’s copyright law is governed primarily by the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000.
Key Principles:
Copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works.
Duration: Life of the author + 70 years.
Moral rights: Right to be identified as the author and to object to derogatory treatment.
Fair dealing: Limited exceptions for research, criticism, news reporting.
Important Irish Cases:
Case 1: EMC Europe Ltd v. UPC Communications (2007)
Facts: Involved software copyright and liability of ISPs for copyright infringement.
Decision: Affirmed that software code is protected as a literary work.
Relevance: Establishes strong protection for software and digital works in Ireland.
Case 2: Eircom Ltd v. Digital Rights Ireland (2010)
Facts: Digital Rights Ireland challenged ISP liability for facilitating copyright infringement.
Decision: Courts emphasized that ISPs have limited liability but must comply with takedown obligations.
Relevance: Balances copyright enforcement with intermediary protection in Ireland.
3. UK: Copyright Framework
The UK’s copyright law is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).
Key Principles:
Protects original works (literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, software, films).
Duration: Life + 70 years for literary, artistic, and musical works; 50 years for films, sound recordings, broadcasts.
Moral rights: Similar to Ireland but more explicitly enforceable (right of attribution, integrity, and preventing false attribution).
Fair dealing exceptions include research, private study, criticism, news reporting, parody, and quotation.
Important UK Cases:
Case 3: Designers Guild Ltd v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] UKHL 58
Facts: Dispute over copyright in textile designs.
Decision: The House of Lords emphasized the importance of substantial copying rather than minor differences.
Relevance: Sets a benchmark for originality and substantiality in UK copyright.
Case 4: Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v. Bron [1963] Ch 587
Facts: Song copyright infringement case.
Decision: Emphasized that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Relevance: Foundational principle in UK copyright law.
Case 5: SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] UKSC 24
Facts: SAS software company claimed copyright over functionality and programming interface.
Decision: UK Supreme Court ruled that copyright protects code and manuals, but not functionality or programming language.
Relevance: Clarifies boundaries of software copyright protection in the UK.
4. European Union: Copyright Framework
EU copyright law is harmonized through directives such as:
Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive) – Harmonizes reproduction, communication, and distribution rights.
Directive 2019/790 (Digital Single Market Directive) – Modernizes rules for digital platforms, text & data mining, and online content sharing.
Key Principles:
Harmonized duration: Life + 70 years.
Strong protection for digital works and cross-border enforcement.
Emphasis on authors’ economic and moral rights.
Exceptions include teaching, research, quotation, and temporary acts of reproduction.
Important EU Cases:
Case 6: Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08, 2009)
Facts: Issue of copyright protection for snippets of text in newspapers.
Decision: The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held that even short extracts can be protected if they express the author’s intellectual creation.
Relevance: Broadens the scope of protectable works across the EU.
Case 7: SAS Institute Inc v. World Programming Ltd (CJEU, 2012)
Facts: Same as the UK case, but interpreted under EU law.
Decision: Functionality and ideas behind software are not copyrightable; only source code and manuals are protected.
Relevance: Confirms EU harmonization of software copyright.
Case 8: Football Association Premier League Ltd v. QC Leisure [2012]
Facts: Unauthorized retransmission of live football broadcasts in EU member states.
Decision: CJEU confirmed that copyright in broadcasts includes protection against unauthorized retransmission, reinforcing territorial and economic rights.
Relevance: Shows strong enforcement of digital rights and broadcasting content across the EU.
Case 9: Deckmyn v. Vandersteen (C-201/13, 2014)
Facts: Parody exception for copyright-protected comics in Belgium.
Decision: Court clarified that parody is a legitimate EU exception but must evoke an existing work and be noticeably different.
Relevance: Influences fair dealing/fair use exceptions across EU states.
5. Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | Ireland | UK | EU |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Law | Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 | CDPA 1988 | Harmonized via InfoSoc Directive & DSM Directive |
| Duration | Life + 70 years | Life + 70 years | Life + 70 years |
| Software Protection | Literary work | Literary work, manuals; not functionality | Literary work, manuals; not functionality |
| Moral Rights | Yes: attribution, integrity | Yes, enforceable: attribution, integrity, false attribution | EU-wide recognition via directives |
| Exceptions | Fair dealing (research, news, criticism) | Fair dealing + parody, quotation | Harmonized exceptions (research, teaching, parody, TDM) |
| Key Case | EMC Europe v. UPC (software) | SAS Institute v. WPL (software) | Infopaq (text snippets) |
6. Key Takeaways
Originality standard: All three jurisdictions protect works reflecting the author’s intellectual creation.
Software protection: Ireland, UK, and EU treat software as a literary work, but functionality is excluded.
Moral rights: Strongest in UK, recognized in Ireland, harmonized in EU directives.
Exceptions and limitations: UK is slightly broader (parody, quotation); EU harmonizes digital use; Ireland more restrictive.
Digital content: EU directives emphasize cross-border digital rights; UK has adapted some rules post-Brexit.
RELATED Blog
comments