The Austrian Supreme Court docket (hereinafter: “ASC”) dominated on nineteenth of December 2023 (4 Ob 112/23h) in a case in regards to the 2019 movie “Yesterday”. The Plaintiff alleged that the movie infringed its copyright in a brief screenplay concept printed in 2011.
The First Defendant distributes the movie “Yesterday” to Austrian cinemas. The Second Defendant is accountable for using the rights to this movie within the Austrian video market. As regards the content material of the movie, the ASC explains that at first the principle character, a beforehand unsuccessful musician, discovers that he’s the one one who is aware of the Beatles and their songs. He passes them off as his personal and thus rises to world stardom.
Again in 2011, the Plaintiff printed a textual content with the title “Right here comes the solar” on the web site “Make’n Films”, wherein an insignificant musician finds himself in a world wherein the Beatles by no means existed. He turns into a star by utilizing their songs, which everybody believes he wrote. On the finish, he fears being murdered like John Lennon.
The Austrian Decrease Courts denied infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright.
The Plaintiff’s Extraordinary Enchantment to the ASC remained unsuccessful:
“Works” inside the that means of Part 1 of the Austrian Copyright Act are mental creations within the fields of literature, sound artwork, visible arts and cinematography. The item of copyright safety just isn’t the thought (concept) underlying the work as such, however solely the private bodily shaping of the concept. Primarily based on the elemental precept of this idea-expression dichotomy, mere concepts, together with movie concepts, are usually not protected by the Austrian Copyright Regulation.
The ASC primarily based its resolution on the next information: The Plaintiff’s “movie concept” laid down in his textual content “Right here comes the solar” primarily consists of a musician in a fantasy world passing off the Beatles’ works as his personal and thus attaining fame. The Defendants had proven to the courts that comparable concepts had already been utilized in earlier works corresponding to “Jean-Philippe” or “I’m a Beatle”. However the Plaintiff might set up earlier than the courts that he was not conscious of those publications and argued that the movie “Yesterday” was a tailored copy of his textual content “Right here comes the solar”.
The ASC discovered that the Plaintiff’s textual content lacked originality. Consequently, the ASC dominated that the decrease courts justifiably denied it the standing as a piece when it comes to Part 1 of the Austrian Copyright Act.
Moreover, the ASC dominated that within the current case – other than the dearth of artistic originality of the Plaintiff’s textual content – the plot of the Movie distributed by the Defendants deviated significantly from the Plaintiff’s half-page textual content in query: Whereas within the Plaintiff’s script the principle character fears being murdered on his 40th birthday similar to John Lennon, the rock’n’roll comedy “Yesterday” offers with the principle character’s battle with constructing a star profession on plagiarism on the value of breaking apart a love affair.
Observe by the creator of the weblog submit:
The thought-expression dichotomy may be very apparent concerning most works. The thought of an unpainted portray, an unwritten novel, a non-taken picture, and so forth. just isn’t protected underneath copyright. Nevertheless, in the case of movies as works, it’s the amalgamation of pre-existing, emergent in the midst of filming and created in post-production items of the “work product” that each one collectively result in the copyright protected work. The Plaintiff likely meant to implement the copyright of his textual content fairly than of an concept. Nevertheless, the ruling of the ASC was that not even his half-pager textual content was a copyright protected work.
On this context it turns into apparent that it’s every-day enterprise in movie manufacturing to guage whether or not a pre-existing work is exploited by a movie or if a movie concept is merely used as inspiration. The sensible relevance of this distinction is demonstrated by the recognition of sequels and prequels. Whereas such works may very well be thought of as taking up the mere movie concept and subsequently not topic to afuthorisation, it’s the normal opinion in Austria that sequels and prequels are variations which require the authorisation of the best holders of the unique movie. Remakes, i.e. the re-filming of a movie materials, present how tough the excellence is in follow and what authorized implications it has on the individuals concerned: whereas the screenwriter is granted rights over “remakes”, this isn’t usually the case for the director of the unique movie. It’s because a “remake” usually doesn’t draw on the cinematic design of the unique movie, however “solely” on the pre-existing screenplay or e book on which it’s primarily based and which it reinterprets on movie.
The choice by the ASC at its core issues the next questions: Is the movie “Yesterday” an exploitation of the pre-existing “quick screenplay” thus requiring authorisation? Or was the Plaintiff’s textual content not a piece in any respect? If it was a piece, was there an exploitation of the textual content by means of the movie? The ASC answered all questions within the unfavourable: Specifically, on the premise of the findings that comparable concepts had already been utilized in earlier works and that the textual content was merely a half-pager, the ASC dominated that the summary fundamental concept underlying a movie doesn’t get pleasure from safety and the “quick textual content” doesn’t have any individuality which may justify copyright safety.
From the perspective of movie manufacturing follow, this result’s solely partially clarifying: It can’t be dominated out that the ASC would have determined in another way if it had not been a half-page textual content at subject however a novel and/or if there had not already been earlier works with an analogous plot. Subsequently, the consequence stays unsatisfactory in follow: As so usually within the lifetime of a lawyer – all of it depends upon the general circumstances of the person case!
