In its ruling 23 Cdo 1048/2023, the Supreme Court examined whether authors are entitled to compensation under Section 25(1)(b) of the Copyright Act in connection with the sale of smartphones, despite an exception for “mobile phones” provided for in Section 6(2) of Decree No. 488/2006 Coll. The ruling was in line with the relevant European directive and CJEU case law.
The dispute concerned the obligation to provide information on the sale, import, or receipt of storage media integrated into or attachable to mobile phones, as it relates to determining compensation for the reproduction of copyrighted works for personal use.
The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of “mobile phones” from the scope of copying devices under Section 6(2) of Decree No. 488/2006 Coll. does not preclude the right to royalties under Section 25(1)(b) of the Copyright Act. This applies to products that, in normal use, allow the reproduction of copyrighted works for personal use beyond a negligible extent. Consequently, this right also extends to smartphones, regardless of their multifunctionality.
The Supreme Court highlighted the need for Euro-conform interpretation of national legislation, in line with Directive 2001/29/EC and CJEU case law. This interpretation dictates that similar categories of devices and media should be treated equally with regard to the right to royalties. The Court noted that the exception for “mobile phones” was introduced at a time when such products were significantly different from today’s smartphones. As a result, the exception should be interpreted narrowly, applying only to products that, in normal use, allow only minimal reproductions of copyrighted works for personal use. Therefore, this exception does not apply to so-called smart mobile phones.
Seminars, webcasts, business breakfasts and other events organized by Deloitte.
