Collective Administration of Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) in the Light of the BSA Decision

Pavel Koukal

Abstract

In this paper the author addresses the issue of collective administration of graphical user interfaces according to the impact of the CJEU decision in BSA v. Ministry of Culture on the case-law in one of EU Member states (Czech Republic). The author analyses the decision of the Czech Supreme Court where this Court concluded that visitors of Internet cafés use graphical user interface actively, which represents relevant usage of a copyrighted works within the meaning of Art. 18 the Czech Copyright Act. In this paper, attention is first paid to the definition of graphical user interface, its brief history and possible regimes of intellectual property protection. Subsequently, the author focuses on copyright protection of graphical user interfaces in the Czech law and interprets the BSA decision from the perspective of collective administration of copyright. Although the graphical user interfaces are independent objects of the copyright protection, if they are used while running the computer program the legal regulation of computer programs has priority. Based on conclusions reached by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic in the BSA case, the author claims that collective administration of graphical user interfaces is neither reasonable nor effective.

Keywords

Graphical User Interface, BSA v. Ministry of Culture, Communication to the Public, Rental Right, Collective Administration, Computer Program

Full Text:

References

Show references Hide references

[1] Derclaye, E. 2014, Assessing the Impact and Reception of the Court of Justice of the European Union case law on UK copyright law: What does the future hold? [online]. Available at: <http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/3613/> [Accessed on 3 December 2015].

[2] Derclaye, E., Leistner, M. 2011, Intellectual Property Overlaps, European Perspective. Hart Publishing, Oxford.

[3] Dinwoodie, G., B., Janis M.D. 2010, Trade Dress and Design Law. Wolters Kluwer, New York.

[4] Eichmann, H., Falckenstein, R.V. 2010, Geschmacksmustergesetz, kommentar. C.H.Beck, München.

[5] Engelbart, D., Lehtman, H. 1988, Working Together: The “Human System“ and the “Tool system“ [online]. Available at: <http://dougengelbart.org/pubs/seminars/sembinder1992nov/R.pdf> [Accessed on 3 December 2015].

[6] Fiscor, M., Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights [online]. Available at: <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/855/ wipo_pub_855.pdf> [Accessed on 5 December 2015].

[7] Galitz, W.O. 2007, The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Indianapolis.

[8] Griffiths, J. 2013, Dematerialization, Pragmatism and the European Copyright Revolution. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 33, no. 4. DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqt017

[9] Groves, P.J. 1997, Sourcebook on Intellectual Property Law. Cavendish Publishing Limited, London.

[10] Guarda, P. 2013, Looking for a Feasible Form of Software Protection: Copyright or Patent, is that the Question? European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 35, no. 8.

[11] Howe, M. 2010, Russel-Clarke and Howe on Industrial Designs. 8th edition. Sweet&Maxwell, London.

[12] Husovec, M. 2012, Judikatórna harmonizácia pojmu autorského diela v únijnom práve. Bulletin slovenskej advokácie, No. 12.

[13] Janssen, Ch., Weisbecker, A., Ziegler, J. 1993, ‘Generating User Interfaces from Data Models and Dialogue Net Specifications‘ in Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York.

[14] Koch, F. A. 1991, Rechtsschutz für Benutzeroberflächen von Software. GRUR, no. 3.

[15] Kur, A., Dreier, T. 2013, European Intellectual Property Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA.

[16] Loewenheim, U. 1989, Legal Protection for Computer Programs in West Germany, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 4, no. 2.

[17] Loewenheim, U. 2010, Handbuch des Urheberrechts. C.H. Beck, München.

[18] Muchlinsky, P.T. 1996, A Case of Czech Beer: Competition and Competitiveness in the Transitional Economies. The Modern Law Review, vol. 59, no. 5.

[19] Pilarski, J.H. 1987, User Interfaces and the Idea-Expression Dichotomy, Or, Are the Copyright Laws User Friendly. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, vol. 15, no. 4.

[20] Polanski, P.P. 2013, Some Reflections on the Duality of Regime for Software Protection in the European Union. Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 29, no. 3. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2013.03.012

[21] Reimer, J. 2005, A History of the GUI [online]. Available at: <http://www.cdpa.co.uk/UoP/Found/Downloads/reading6.pdf> [Accessed on 3 December 2015].

[22] Rolling, J.M. 1998, No Protection, No Progress for Graphical User Interfaces. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, vol. 2, no. 1.

[23] Rosati, E. 2010, Originality in a Work, or a Work of Originality: The Effects of the Infopaq Decision. Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., vol. 58, no. 4.

[24] Saffer, D. 2010, Designing for Interaction, Second Edition: Creating Innovative Applications and Devices. New Riders, Berkeley.

[25] Samuelson, P. 1989, Why The Look and Feel of Software User Interfaces Should Not Be Protected by Copyright Law, Communications of the ACM, vol. 32, no. 5. DOI: 10.1145/63485.63487

[26] Samuelson, P. 1991, Computer Programs, User Interfaces, and Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act of 1976: A Critique of Lotus v. Paperback. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 6, no. 2.

[27] Samuelson, P. Glushko, R.J. 1989, What the User Interface Thinks of the Software Copyright “Look and Feel” Lawsuits (and What the Law Ought to Do about it). ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 2.

[28] Smith, J. 1999, Budweiser or Budweiser? John Marshall Law Review, vol. 32, no. 4.

[29] Stamatoudi, I. A. 2001, Are Sophisticated Multimedia Works Comparable to Video Games Part II. Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., vol. 48, no. 3.

[30] Stigler, R. 2014, Ooey GUI: The Messy Protection of Graphical User Interfaces. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, vol. 12, no. 3.

[31] Suthersanen, U. 2010, Design Law: European Union and United States of America. 2nd edition. Sweet&Maxwell, London.

[32] Šalamoun, M. 2004, Kolektivní správa – formace a deformace autorské vůle, Právní rozhledy, vol. 7, no. 6.

[33] Šavelka, J. 2012, Autorskoprávní ochrana funkcionality softwaru. Rigorózní práce. Masarykova univerzita, Brno [online]. Available at: <http://is.muni.cz/th/134449/pravf_r/> [Accessed on 3 December 2015].

[34] Telec, I., Tůma, P. 2007, Autorský zákon, komentář. C.H. Beck, Praha.

[35] Terry, P.M. 1994, GUI Wars: The Windows Litigation and the Continuing Decline of "Look and Feel". Arkansas Law Review, vol. 47, no. 1.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2016-2-1


Copyright (c) 2016 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology