Table of Contents

Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright

Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright

Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property series

Edited by Estelle Derclaye

It has been over fifteen years since the EU started harmonising copyright law. This original Handbook takes stock and questions what the future of EU copyright should be. What went wrong with the harmonisation acquis? What did the directives do well? Should copyright be further harmonised? Each of the 25 recognised copyright experts from different European countries gives a critical account of the EU harmonisation carried out on several aspects of copyright law (subject-matter, originality, duration, rights, defences etc.), and asks whether further harmonisation is desirable or not. This way, the Handbook not only gives guidance to European institutions as to what remains to be done or needs to be remedied but is also the first overall picture of current and future EU copyright law.

Chapter 5: The Requirement of Originality

Ramon Casas Vallés

Subjects: law - academic, intellectual property law


for a dramatic work could still be protected as a series of photographs.19 Originality was a prerequisite for protection under both headings, and it appears that the emphasis put by section 35 on the originality of cinematograph productions did not set a more stringent test than for other types of works.20 However, there remained uncertainties as to which films could be considered as dramatic works under the Act.21 The characterization of a given film as a dramatic or a non-dramatic film (the latter being protected under the sole heading of photographs) is important. Dramatic films received protection for a longer period, that is, author’s life plus fifty years,22 as against fifty years from their making for non-dramatic films.23 Also, dramatic films could be reproduced by anyone, subject to Section 35(1) further defined ‘cinematograph’ as including ‘any work produced by a process analogous to cinematography’. 17 However, the idea of protection of the visual recording constituted by the film strip as a specific subject-matter, by analogy to sound recordings, was expressed in the Gorell Committee Report, and comparison between the two ‘recordings’ was made. 18 Nordisk Films Co. Ltd v. Onda [1919–24] MCC 337; also, under a similar definition, the Canadian case of Canadian Admiral Corp. Ltd v. Rediffusion Inc. (1954) 20 CPR 75; 14 Fox Pat. C. 114. 19 Nordisk Films Co. Ltd v. Onda [1919–24] MCC 337. 20 Ricketson, op. cit., at para. 10.3, pp. 550–1; H. Laddie, P. Prescott and M. Vitoria, The...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information