Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the CG and YN v Pelham GmbH and Others, Case C-590/23 (Pelham II)

The latest Opinion of the European Copyright Society addresses how the concept of pastiche applies to music sampling under EU copyright law, in the context of CG and YN v Pelham GmbH and Others, Case C-590/23 (Pelham II).

The opinion was drafted by Profs. Péter Mezei, Martin Senftleben, Caterina Sganga and Christophe Geiger who explain the opinion here. Signatories include IViR’s Prof. João Pedro Quintais and Prof. Mireille van Eechoud

Abstract

In its questions for preliminary ruling, the German Federal Court of Justice asked for clarification as regards the definition of pastiche under EU copyright law; and, in essence, whether and how this concept applies to musical sampling. In the present Opinion, the European Copyright Society takes the view that pastiche is an autonomous concept of EU law. Article 5(3)(k) InfoSoc Directive (ISD) should be read as an overarching provision including three forms of permitted use that share their underlying nature but shall be judged differently. The meaning of pastiche cannot be understood as a mere imitation of an artistic style and it need not entail an explicit interaction with the original work. The presence of humour or mockery is not a necessary requirement for the application of the pastiche exception. Also, the expression resulting from the exercise of the pastiche exception need not itself be an original work. Finally, the intention of the user to create pastiche plays no role in the review of the legality of any given use. At the same time, legitimate forms of pastiche need to have their own features that are distinguishable from the copyrighted expression in pre-existing works used as source materials. Overall the use of the pastiche exception for purposes of musical sampling, as in the underlying Metall auf Metall case, complies with all the three steps of Article 5(5) ISD.

Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the CG and YN v Pelham GmbH and Others, Case C-590/23 (Pelham II)

Abstract

Links

Bibtex