Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 March 2010 - Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH, Axel Springer AG, Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH, SPIEGEL-Verlag Rudolf AUGSTEIN GmbH & Co KG, Verlag M. DuMont Schauberg Expedition der Kölnischen Zeitung GmbH & Co KG
(Case C-145/10)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Handelsgericht Wien
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Eva-Maria Painer
Defendants: Standard VerlagsGmbH, Axel Springer AG, Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH, SPIEGEL-Verlag Rudolf AUGSTEIN GmbH & Co KG, Verlag M. DuMont Schauberg Expedition der Kölnischen Zeitung GmbH & Co KG
Questions referred
Is Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
1 to be interpreted as meaning that its application and therefore joint legal proceedings are not precluded where actions brought against several defendants for copyright infringements identical in substance are based on differing national legal grounds the essential elements of which are nevertheless identical in substance - such as applies to all European States in proceedings for a prohibitory injunction, not based on fault, in claims for reasonable remuneration for copyright infringements and in claims in damages for unlawful exploitation?
(a) Is Article 5(3)(d) of 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,
2 in the light of Article 5(5) of that directive, to be interpreted as meaning that its application is not precluded where a press report quoting a work or other protected matter is not a literary work protected by copyright?
(b) Is Article 5(3)(d) of the directive, in the light of Article 5(5) thereof to be interpreted as meaning that its application is not precluded where the name of the author or performer is not attached to the work or other protected matter quoted?
(a) Is Article 5(3)(e) of Directive 2001/29, in the light of Article 5(5) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that in the interests of criminal justice in the context of public security its application requires a specific, current and express appeal for publication of the image on the part of the security authorities, i.e. that publication of the image must be officially ordered for search purposes, or otherwise an offence is committed?
(b) If the answer to question 3a should be in the negative: are the media permitted to rely on Article 5(3)(e) of the directive even if, without such a search request being made by the authorities, they should decide, of their own volition, whether images should be published 'in the interests of public security'?
(c) If the answer to question 3b should be in the affirmative: is it then sufficient for the media to assert after the event that publication of an image served to trace a person or is it always necessary for there to be a specific appeal to readers to assist in a search in the investigation of an offence, which must be directly linked to the publication of the photograph?
Are Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/29 in conjunction with Article 5(5) thereof and Article 12 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971), as revised on 28 September 1979, particularly in the light of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) of 20 March 1952 and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
3 to be interpreted as meaning that photographic works and/or photographs, particularly portrait photos, are afforded 'weaker' copyright protection or no copyright protection at all against adaptations because, in view of their 'realistic image', the degree of formative freedom is too minor?