Three-step test (copyright)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In copyright law, a three-stage test is a three-stage test provided for in several international treaties, with which it is checked whether an exception regulation ( limitation provision ) represents an acceptable interference with the rights of the author. In its original form in the revised Berne Convention, it states that an exception to the general right of reproduction of the author is permissible, provided that it is aimed at "certain special cases" (step 1) and that reproductions within the scope of this exception do not impair the normal exploitation of the work (Step 2) or unreasonably violate the legitimate interests of the author (Step 3). In some cases, the three-step test is also provided for other intellectual property rights , in particular patent and trademark law .

introduction

The basic organization of copyright regulations worldwide is that comprehensive property rights ( exploitation rights ) are initially granted for certain products or creations - for example, the author's exclusive right to reproduce his work ( reproduction right ). However, these exclusive rights are then again restricted to a certain extent in order to achieve a balance of interests . These restrictive norms are known as barriers. In most legal systems in the world, for example, there is a limitation that allows copies of a scientific article to be made for purely private purposes ( private copy ).

Various international treaties attempt to achieve a certain degree of harmonization of the world's national copyright regulations. Such agreements usually do not specifically stipulate which restrictions the member states allow and which are forbidden, but merely describe in an abstract manner the requirements for directive-compliant restriction provisions. A three-step test is used regularly for this purpose.

International treaties

Overview

In 2014, four international treaties in force contained a form of the three-step test, namely the Revised Berne Convention (RBC), the TRIPS Agreement and the two WIPO Treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO- Performance and Phonograms Contract (WPPT). These are presented below. In addition, there are two other agreements that have not yet entered into force: on the one hand, the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (Treaty of Beijing) concluded in 2012, which in Article 13 (2) largely includes the three-step test from Article 16 Paragraph 2 WPPT takes over, however, in accordance with the purpose of the contract, only refers to performances and omits references to sound carriers or sound carrier manufacturers; on the other hand, the Marrakech Treaty to facilitate access to published works for blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled persons (Marrakech Treaty) of June 27, 2013, which is expressly stated in Art. 11 with regard to restrictions that serve to implement the agreements prescribes the use of the three-step test of the RBÜ, the TRIPS Agreement and the WCT.

agreement Job content regime
RBÜ Art. 9 para. 2 The legislation of the member states reserves the right to permit reproduction in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction neither affects the normal evaluation of the work nor unreasonably harms the legitimate interests of the author. copyright
TRIPS Art. 13 The members limit restrictions and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that neither impair the normal evaluation of the work nor unreasonably violate the legitimate interests of the rights holder. copyright
TRIPS Art. 17 Members may provide limited exceptions to rights under a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive information, if these exceptions take into account the legitimate interests of the trademark owner and third parties. Trademark law
TRIPS Art. 26 para. 2 Members may provide limited exceptions to the protection of industrial designs, provided that such exceptions do not inappropriately conflict with the normal exploitation of protected industrial designs or models and do not inappropriately impair the legitimate interests of the owner of the protected design or model, including the legitimate interests of third parties are to be considered. Design law
TRIPS Art. 30 Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights under a patent, provided such exceptions do not inappropriately conflict with the normal exploitation of the patent and do not inappropriately affect the legitimate interests of the proprietor of the patent, taking into account the legitimate interests of third parties. Patent law
WCT Art. 10 para. 1 The contracting parties may provide for restrictions or exceptions in certain special cases in their legal provisions with regard to the rights granted to authors of works of literature and art under this contract, which neither affect the normal exploitation of the works nor unreasonably infringe the legitimate interests of the authors. copyright
WCT Art. 10 para. 2 When applying the Berne Convention, the contracting parties shall limit restrictions or exceptions to certain special cases with regard to the rights provided therein, which neither affect the normal exploitation of the works nor unreasonably infringe the legitimate interests of the authors. copyright
WPPT Art. 16 para. 2 The contracting parties limit the restrictions and exceptions with regard to the rights provided for in this contract to certain special cases that neither impair the normal exploitation of the performance or the sound carrier nor unreasonably infringe the legitimate interests of the performing artist or sound carrier manufacturer. copyright

Revised Bern Convention (1967)

standard

According to Art. 9 Para. 2 RBC (Stockholm [1967] and Paris [1971] version) it is reserved for the legislation of the member states

"To allow the reproduction in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction neither affects the normal evaluation of the work nor unreasonably harms the legitimate interests of the author."

History of origin

The Bern Convention, which was concluded in 1886 and has been revised and expanded again and again since then, did not provide for a uniform right of reproduction until 1967, but was instead limited to particular regulations for certain works and forms of use. Such a general minimum right was not included in the Convention until the revision of Stockholm (1967). It is true that the member states had all previously granted the author a right of reproduction in their national laws, but the scope of the right differed considerably from state to state, as did the exceptions to this right. With this inclusion of the general right of reproduction, there was also a need to find a general rule in the area of ​​barriers, on the one hand to prevent contradictions between the new right of reproduction and national exemption provisions and, on the other hand, to remove the risk that member states could Expansion of their catalog of barriers undermine the right of reproduction.

The study group Sweden / BIRPI, which had been entrusted with the preparation of an initial draft years before the Stockholm Conference, proposed in its document submitted in 1963, in addition to the general right of reproduction already envisaged at that time, the inclusion of a passage according to which national law would restrict the recognition and exercise of the right of reproduction should be possible if there is a clearly defined case and the reproduction does not compete with the commercial exploitation of the work. As evidenced by its protocols, the group refrained from listing individual restrictions because it was feared that the national legislators could adopt them in their entirety and, in the course of this, cancel the rights of the authors, some of which were granted. The Committee of Governmental Experts, set up in 1965, endorsed the idea of ​​a general right of reproduction, but recommended a different formulation in the area of ​​rule exceptions. Among other things, there was the fear that the widespread and widely considered indispensable exemption of private copies could fail because of the study group's version, because private copies are also likely to cause economic losses if interpreted restrictively. Instead, the committee recommended that the reproduction of protected works (a) for private use; (b) for the administration of justice and official purposes as well as (c) in certain special cases in which the reproduction does not conflict with the legitimate interests of the author and the normal exploitation of the work is not impaired. In addition to two specific provisions with case (c) - which was a novelty in the field of convention law - this proposal already contained a general clause .

At the conference, the proposal could not be fully implemented. Partly expansions and partly restrictions were suggested, for example because reproduction for private use without any restrictions raised concerns among the representatives of the member states. Several states wanted to reformulate cases (a) and (b) accordingly. From this discussion, the three-step test, which was introduced later, arose largely on the basis of a proposal from Great Britain, which in its proposal wanted to dispense with regulations (a) and (b) entirely and instead restrict itself to a single general clause based on (c) . The version passed only differed in detail from the British proposal. Specifically, the order of step 2 ("... neither affect the normal evaluation of the work") and step 3 ("... nor unreasonably violate the legitimate interests of the author ...") was reversed in the British draft and was reversed at the suggestion of the German delegation because the failure to interfere with the normal evaluation should appear as the step under review.

TRIPS Agreement (1994)

standard

The TRIPS Agreement from 1994 stipulates in its copyright part in Art. 13:

"The members limit restrictions and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that neither impair the normal evaluation of the work nor unreasonably violate the legitimate interests of the rights holder."

History of origin

The copyright provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (Art. 9-13) follow the so-called "Bern Plus" approach, which means that they are based on the basic principles specified by the RBÜ (Paris version) (cf. Art. 9 Para . 1 TRIPS). In terms of its origins, there are clear differences between the participating states with regard to Art. 13 TRIPS. For example, when preparing the GATT- Uruguay Round , which resulted in the TRIPS Agreement in 1994, the United States proposed that only those restrictions and exceptions to property rights be permitted that “are fully in line with the requirements of the Bern Convention (1971) and in any case are restricted to clearly and clearly defined special cases "which" do not affect existing or potential markets for copyrighted works or their value ". In the subsequent sentence (“and in any case […]”), a tightening of Art. 9 (2) RBC was seen in some cases. Other industrialized countries also tended to push for stricter barriers, while developing and emerging countries (such as Brazil and India) in particular advocated the possibility of more permissive exception and limitation regulations (or at least - in the case of the RBÜ signatories - no tightening of the RBÜ was intended). The discussions finally led to the definition in Art. 9 Para. 1 TRIPS, through which the vast majority of the provisions of the RBÜ were incorporated, including Art. 9 Para. 2 RBÜ with the three-step test. This includes, in particular, the freedom to quote , which is the only specific exception or restriction in Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the RBC that is binding for all member states.

Regardless of this, the three-step test can be found again explicitly in Art. 13 TRIPS, which is based on a draft proposal by the USA. This was originally - in line with the first proposal of the American delegation cited above - a bit broader, but in the course of the discussion it gradually came closer to the RBC version and ultimately culminated in it almost word for word.

Relationship to the RBÜ

The factual double existence of the three-stage test in the TRIPS Agreement raises the question of the relationship to the RBC. The literature answers this mainly to the effect that Art. 13 TRIPS represents an additional control for the permitted limits from the RBÜ. It is therefore a "Bern Plus" element in the sense that a barrier that fails the three-stage test of the RBÜ cannot be justified by the TRIPS Agreement, but vice versa against a barrier that passes the three-stage test of the RBÜ, possibly a handle through the TRIPS Agreement. There is at least a certain amount of space for differences in interpretation due to a series of differences or different nuances:

  • The TRIPS Agreement goes further than the RBC in that the latter only refers to the copyright of the author, but not to other forms of exploitation. Correspondingly, the three-stage test of the RBÜ also only relates to reproduction, whereas that of the TRIPS Agreement relates to all exploitation rights.
  • There are also differences in valuation from the different basic intentions of the agreements. While the RBÜ is primarily aimed at securing and gradually expanding the rights of authors, the meaning and purpose of the TRIPS Agreement is to dismantle trade obstacles and barriers, i.e. to promote international trade. Against this background, Ricketson points out that in the light of the balancing character of the TRIPS Agreement (see in particular Art. 7 TRIPS) it would be legally incorrect to interpret the three-step test there excessively in favor of rights holders.
  • The RBÜ regulates some permitted exemption clauses again separately in Art. 10 Para. 1 and 2, where reference is made to the "decent customs"; Art. 10 para. 1 even requires the right to quote as an imperative. Art. 13 TRIPS makes it clear that the uses determined there must also be measured against the three-step scale.
  • The third step in Art. 9 (2) RBÜ refers to the unreasonable violation of “legitimate interests of the author”, while the TRIPS Agreement at this point focuses on the “legitimate interests of the right holder” (emphasis added), which means Differences in valuation could result. Art. 13 TRIPS aims at monetary aspects of copyright protection in accordance with the purpose of the agreement. If, for example, a national limitation regulation restricts the author's right of recognition in violation of Art. 9 Para. 2 RBC, it would be assumed in the literature that there will be no direct handling of this via the dispute resolution mechanisms of the TRIPS Agreement, since it is an a violation of Art. 13 TRIPS is absent.

Finally, it must be borne in mind in particular that Art. 13 TRIPS, although in many cases coincides with the three-stage test of the RBÜ, opens up an additional channel for law enforcement. While the member states themselves monitor compliance with the agreement within the framework of the RBC, possible violations of the TRIPS agreement can be checked by means of a WTO dispute settlement procedure (“WTO panel”).

WIPO Treaties (1996)

standard

Art. 10 para. 1 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) of December 20, 1996 allows restrictions and exceptions to the rights granted to authors of works of literature and art in the WCT

"In certain special cases [...] that neither impair the normal evaluation of the work nor unreasonably violate the legitimate interests of the author."

In addition, Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the WCT stipulates that this three-step criterion applies not only to restrictions and exceptions to the WCT itself, but also to restrictions and exceptions to the RBÜ's right of reproduction. An identical formulation of the test can also be found in the WIPO Treaty on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT) (Art. 16 (2)) with regard to the exploitation of performances and phonograms.

History of origin

The basic intention of the WIPO treaties was, in particular, to be able to take account of the challenges of technological change and the increasing importance of the Internet, the peculiarities of which were not explicitly taken into account in the TRIPS agreement. The Basic Proposal for the WCT also contained an only slightly different form of the approved version of the later Article 10. Deviating from this, restrictions and exceptions should “only” be possible under the conditions listed. However, the word “only” was deleted as superfluous in the subsequent discussion process. The double structure of the three-step test in Art. 10 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 was also included in the original draft. Paragraph 2, which once again expands the scope of the three-step test of the WCT, met with criticism; some states (for example South Korea and China) demanded its complete removal. Singapore, for example, raised concerns that it was "in contradiction to the obligation to compensate for copyright if the restrictions and exceptions approved by the conference were narrowed, but the scope of protection was increased". An agreement was finally reached by including a passage in the explanations in the joint declaration of the signatory states, according to which Art. 10 para. 2 “neither restricts nor expands the scope of the restrictions and exceptions permitted under the Berne Convention”.

The dual nature of the three-step test and its relationship to the RBÜ and TRIPS

Art. 10 para. 1 WCT relates to restrictions and exceptions to the rights provided for in the WCT and requires the use of the three-step test for this purpose; Art. 10 para. 2 WCT then also orders the three-step test for restrictions and exceptions that are permissible when applying the RBÜ.

As in the case of Art. 13 TRIPS, the three-stage test of the WCT is also a general limit in the sense that it does not only refer to a specific exploitation right (there: the right of reproduction) like the RBÜ. In particular, according to the explanations in the joint declaration of the signatory states, provision is made to apply the restrictions permitted under the RBC also in the area of ​​digital uses, so that, as Lewinski notes, not only the uses of publicly held services described in Art. 2 to 2 of the RBC , for example Lectures and speeches, but also the uses reserved to the authors in the WCT, especially the online transmission of such speeches. In addition, according to the explanations, it should be precisely permissible to find appropriate barriers for new rights in the digital context (which comply with Art. 10 Para. 1 WCT).

literature

  • Nicole Bengeser: The three-step test in international, European and German copyright law. Shaker, Herzogenrath 2015, ISBN 978-3-8440-3337-3 .
  • Joachim Bornkamm : The three-step test as a copyright limitation determination. Career of a term. In: Hans-Jürgen Ahrens u. a. (Ed.): Festschrift for Willi Erdmann. Heymanns, Cologne 2002, ISBN 3-452-25191-8 , pp. 29-48.
  • Andrew F. Christie and Robin Wright: A Comparative Analysis of the Three-Step Tests in International Treaties. In: International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 2014, No. 4, pp. 409-433, doi : 10.1007 / s40319-014-0202-2 .
  • Robert Dittrich: The three-step test . In: Robert Dittrich (Ed.): Contributions to Copyright VIII (=  Austrian series of publications on commercial legal protection, copyright and media law . No. 33 ). MANZ, Vienna 2005, ISBN 3-214-07729-5 , p. 63-119 .
  • Mihály Ficsor: How much of what? The “three-step test” and its application in two recent WTO dispute settlement cases. In: Revue internationale du droit d'auteur. 2002, pp. 110-251.
  • Jens Thomas Füller and Nils Langeloh: Article 13 TRIPS. In: Jan Busche, Peter-Tobias Stoll and Andreas Wiebe (eds.): TRIPs. International and European intellectual property law. Comment. 2nd Edition. Heymanns, Cologne 2013, ISBN 978-3-452-27512-7 .
  • Christophe Geiger, Daniel Gervais and Martin Senftleben: The Three-Step Test Revisited. How to Use the Test's Flexibility in National Copyright Law. In: American University International Law Review. 29, 2014, pp. 581–626 (also free of charge online via SSRN ).
  • Jane C. Ginsburg: Toward Supranational Copyright Law? The WTO Panel Decision and the “Three-Step Test” for Copyright Exceptions. In: Revue internationale du droit d'auteur. 2001, pp. 3-65.
  • Reto M. Hilty and Sylvie Nérisson (eds.): Balancing Copyright. A Survey of National Approaches. Springer, Berlin a. a. 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-29595-9 (as e-book: doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-642-29596-6 ).
  • André Lucas: Le "triple test" de l'article 13 de l'Accord ADPIC à la lumière du rapport du Groupe spécial de l'OMC "Etats-Unis - Article 110 5) de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur". In: Peter Ganea and Adolf Dietz (eds.): Copyright yesterday - today - tomorrow. Festschrift for Adolf Dietz on his 65th birthday. Beck, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-406-48174-4 , pp. 423-433.
  • Sam Ricketson: WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment. WIPO, SCCR / 9/7. 2003. Internet http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_9/sccr_9_7.pdf , accessed on March 1, 2015.
  • Sam Ricketson and Jane C. Ginsburg: International Copyright and Neighboring Rights. The Bern Convention and Beyond. Vol. 1. 2. Ed. Oxford University Press, New York 2006, ISBN 978-0-19-825946-6 .
  • Martin Senftleben : Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test. An Analysis of the Three-Step Test in International and EC Copyright Law. Kluwer, Den Haag u. a. 2004, ISBN 90-411-2267-2 .

Remarks

  1. ↑ Closer Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., Chap. 2.2, 2.3.
  2. ↑ See Christie and Wright, A Comparative Analysis of the Three-Step Tests in International Treaties, 2014, op.cit., P. 410 f.
  3. ↑ See Christie and Wright, A Comparative Analysis of the Three-Step Tests in International Treaties, 2014, op.cit., P. 411 (fn. 4).
  4. ↑ Here reproduced from the Federal Chancellery: Entire legal provision for the Bern Convention (Paris version), version from "today". Accessed: "today"
  5. ↑ Cf. for example Claude Masouyé: Commentary on the Bern Convention on the Protection of Works of Literature and Art. (Translated by Michael Walter.) Carl Heymanns, Munich and Cologne 1981, ISBN 3-452-19004-8 , p. 57 ff. In implicit form, according to some of the viewpoints, a kind of general right of exploitation existed before that, Geiger / Gervais / Senftleben, The Three-Step Test Revisited, 2014, op.cit., P. 583 with additional information
  6. ↑ See Ricketson / Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighboring Rights, 2006, op. Cit., § 13.03; on the difference in the barriers before the Stockholm revision Bornkamm, The three-step test as copyright barriers, 2002, op. cit., p. 30 f. and closer to Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., p. 48.
  7. ↑ See Ricketson / Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighboring Rights, 2006, op. Cit., § 13.03; Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 48.
  8. ↑ Cf. Eugen Ulmer: The plans to reform the Bern Convention for the Protection of Works of Literature and Art. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1965, pp. 539-544, here p. 539.
  9. ↑ “However, it shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, having regard to the provisions of this Convention, to limit the recognition and the exercising of that right, for specified purposes and on the condition that these purposes should not enter into economic competition with these works. " See Doc. S / 1, Records 1967, p. 112, cit. according to Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., p. 49 and Eugen Ulmer: The plans to reform the Bern Agreement for the Protection of Works of Literature and Art. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1965, pp. 539-544, here p. 542.
  10. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 49.
  11. ↑ Cf. Eugen Ulmer: The plans to reform the Bern Convention for the Protection of Works of Literature and Art. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1965, pp. 539-544, here p. 542.
  12. ↑ Quotation from Eugen Ulmer: The plans to reform the Bern Agreement for the Protection of Works of Literature and Art. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1965, pp. 539-544, here p. 542.
  13. ↑ Cf. Bornkamm, The three-step test as copyright barriers, 2002, op.cit., P. 31.
  14. ↑ Cf. Eugen Ulmer: The right of reproduction (Art. 9). In: Dietrich Reimer and Eugen Ulmer: The reform of the substantive provisions of the Bern Agreement. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1967, pp. 431-454, pp. 442-444, here p. 444.
  15. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 50.
  16. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op. Cit., P. 50; Silke von Lewinski: International Copyright Law and Policy. Oxford University Press, New York 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-920720-6 , § 5.175. For the history of the determination, also Ricketson / Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighboring Rights, 2006, op.cit., §§ 13.04 ff.
  17. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 52.
  18. ↑ About this Artur-Axel Wandtke: Copyright. 4th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-11-031314-7 , p. 515.
  19. ↑ “[A] ny limitations and exemptions to exclusive economic rights shall be permitted only to the extent allowed and in full conformity with the requirements of the Berne Convention (1971) and in any event shall be confined to clearly and carefully defined special cases which do not impair actual or potential markets for, or the value of, copyrighted works. " See GATT Doc MTN.GNG / NG11 / W / 14 / Rev.1, 8, cit. according to Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., p. 85.
  20. ↑ More on this Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., Pp. 85 ff.
  21. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 86.
  22. ↑ See Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment, 2003, op.cit., P. 46.
  23. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 86.
  24. ↑ "Contracting parties schall confine any limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights [...] to clearly and carefully defined special cases which do not impair an actual or potential market for or the value of a protected work." See GATT Doc. MTN.GNG / NG11 / W / 70 of May 11, 1990, cit. according to Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., p. 86.
  25. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 86 f.
  26. ^ So Füller / Langeloh in Busche / Stoll / Wiebe, TRIPs, 2nd edition 2013, Art. 13 Rn. 6. In this sense also Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment, 2003, op. Cit., P. 47 ff .; Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 90.
  27. ↑ See Bornkamm, The three-step test as copyright barriers, 2002, op.cit., P. 39.
  28. ↑ Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op. Cit., P. 83; Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment, 2003, op.cit., P. 47.
  29. ↑ See Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment, 2003, op.cit., P. 48.
  30. ↑ Cf. Füller / Langeloh in Busche / Stoll / Wiebe, TRIPs, 2nd edition 2013, Art. 13 marginal no. 6th
  31. ↑ See Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment, 2003, op.cit., P. 49; Christie and Wright, A Comparative Analysis of the Three-Step Tests in International Treaties, 2014, op. Cit., P. 429. On the difference in valuation described, also Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op. Cit ., Pp. 224-226.
  32. ↑ On this Bornkamm, The three-step test as copyright barriers, 2002, op. Cit., P. 39 f.
  33. ↑ Quoted here. according to Swiss federal authorities systematic legal collection no. 0.231.151. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). Retrieved March 21, 2015.
  34. ↑ Here based on the Swiss federal authorities: Systematic legal collection No. 0.231.171.1. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Retrieved March 21, 2015.
  35. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 91.
  36. ↑ Cf. Silke von Lewinski: The diplomatic conference of WIPO 1996 on copyright and related rights. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1997, pp. 667-681, here p. 675.
  37. ↑ Cf. Martin Senftleben: Basic Problems of the Copyright Three-Step Test. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 2004, pp. 200–211, here p. 202.
  38. ↑ See Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op.cit., P. 96.
  39. ↑ Cf. WIPO: Comptes Rendus analytiques (commission principale I) / Summary Minutes, Main Committee I / Actas Resumidas (Comisión Principal I) (WIPO Doc.CRNR / DC / 102) (PDF file, 539 kB). August 26, 1997, accessed March 30, 2015, p. 71, no. 492.
  40. ↑ Martin Senftleben: Basic problems of the copyright three-stage test. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 2004, pp. 200–211, here p. 202.
  41. ↑ Cf. Silke von Lewinski: The diplomatic conference of WIPO 1996 on copyright and related rights. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1997, pp. 667-681, here pp. 675 f .; Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, 2004, op. Cit., P. 97; Mihály Ficsor: The Spring 1997 Horace S. Manges Lecture - Copyright for the Digital Era: The WIPO “Internet” Treaties. In: Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts. 21, No. 3-4, 1996-1997, pp. 197-223, here p. 215.
  42. ↑ Cf. Silke von Lewinski: The diplomatic conference of WIPO 1996 on copyright and related rights. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1997, pp. 667-681, here p. 675.
  43. ↑ Cf. Silke von Lewinski: The diplomatic conference of WIPO 1996 on copyright and related rights. In: GRUR foreign and international part. 1997, pp. 667-681, here p. 676.
  44. ↑ WIPO: Agreed Statements Concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WIPO Doc.CRNR / DC / 96) (PDF file, 14 kB). December 23, 1996, accessed March 30, 2015, p. 3.