Oops, I Sampled Again … the Meaning of “Pastiche” as an Autonomous Concept Under EU Copyright Law

• DOI: 10.1007/s40319-024-01495-z
• Publication Date: 2024-06-03T15:02:41Z
• Authors: Péter Mezei; Bernd Justin Jütte; Caterina Sganga; Léo Pascault
• Keywords: 0502 economics and business; 05 social sciences; 05.05. Jogtudomány

Abstract With the return of Metal auf case ( Pelham v. Hütter ) to Court Justice European Union (CJEU), Luxembourg court will again be faced with question under which circumstances reproduction parts a sound recording requires authorisation. When was first argued before EU’s highest court, it revolved around concept partial and an interpretation quotation exception. In addition, defendant had proposed that national courts, in absence applicable exception, could provide for flexibility by allowing creative uses purely based on fundamental rights. The rejected this possibility, arguing something akin open norm would create legal uncertainty. Following ruling, Germany, where originated, implemented pastiche exception Art. 5(3)(k) Information Society Directive into its copyright law. II , CJEU is asked give guidance pastiche. introduction German law, courts interpreted broadly, variety derivative artistic uses. This article explores from interdisciplinary comparative perspective. After overview relevant decisions, various non-legal meanings comparing development notion laws Italy, France some other EU Member States. Since as well different understandings do not crystallise common understanding notion, subsequently developed autonomous distinguishing parody, Deckmyn case, proposes should understood broadly permits referential have no elements humour or mockery – distinct parody but are nature. An important role must assigned three-step test, functions framework balance interests rightholders users given case.