Vergütungspflicht bei der Vervielfältigung von Urheberwerken - die tschechische und deutsche Regelung im europäischen Kontext Abstrakt Die Vervielfältigung zu privaten Zwecken ist eine der Schranken vom Recht des Urhebers, das Werk zu nutzen. Auf der Grundlage eines Konzepts, das in den 1960er Jahren in Deutschland entstanden ist, ist eine solche Vervielfältigung nur dann möglich, wenn dem Urheber für einen solchen Eingriff in seine wirtschaftlichen Interessen Vergütung gewährt wird. Wie auch in anderen Bereichen des Urheberrechts ist es auch im Falle des Systems der Vergütungen notwendig, ein Gleichgewicht zwischen den Interessen des Urhebers und der gesamten Gesellschaft zu finden. Ein weiteres typisches Zeichen im Zusammenahng mit dem Institut der Vergütungen ist die technologische Entwicklung, die auch der Motor bei der Einführung des Systems der Vergütungen in den 1960er Jahren war. Die Arbeit widmet sich im ersten Kapitel den Gründen für die Einführung des Systems der Vergütungen und den Möglichkeiten seiner Ausgestaltung. Das heißt der Einführung der Vergütungspflicht im Zusammenhang mit bestimmten Geräten, Trägern und dem Angebot einiger Dienstleistungen zu zahlen. Der Problematik der Vergütung wird eine große Aufmerksamkeit sowohl seitens der Fach- wie seitens der breiten Öffentlichkeit gewidmet -...

This thesis provides an overview of extra-contractual legal institutions of the use of copyrighted work. The main emphasis is on the institution of free use and related topic of private copying and fair compensation. Statutory licenses, both chargeable and free of charge, are not omitted. The thesis is divided into three chapters. Brief introduction is followed by chapter providing definition of the fundamental terms of copyright from the perspective of Czech copyright law. The second chapter contains summary of sources of copyright law. Czech law, as well as European and international law is included. The third chapter contains crutial part of the thesis, the analysis of the extra-contractual legal institutions of the use of copyrighted work. After brief comment on free works follows analysis of the Three-Step Test, which is of great significance for all examined legal institutions. Relevant case law - WTO Panel report WT/DS160/R - is examined and the Max Planck Institute's Declaration on a balanced Interpretation of the Three-Step Test is also considered. Subsequent subchapters are dedicated to the institutions of free use and private copying under both, Czech and European copyright law. The thesis also includes comparative analysis of the level of the private Copying levies in the EU, based on...

- ENGLISH The content of this thesis is aimed towards the interpretation of the so-called non- contractual legal institutions of the use of copyrighted work. These institutions represent such legal tools, that exceptionally allow individuals different from the author to exploit copyrighted work with no dependence on the author's permission or will. The text of the work is divided into four main chapters. For introduction into the matter, the opening part is dedicated to the explanation of the term copyright law, its position in the Czech legal system and the main principles it lies upon. This broad explanation is subsequently followed by definition of its fundamental terms - author's work and its use. The crucial part of the work lies in the fourth chapter, which bears the same title as the work itself. The structure of this chapter follows the organisation of the Czech Copyright Act. After description of the free work, the paper gets to the interpretation of individual exemptions and limitations to copyright, thus the institutes of free use and statutory licences. In relation with the matter of exemptions and limitations to copyright, the work does not forget to deal with their key tool, the Three-Step Test, and its related significant interpretation performed by The Dispute Settlement Body at...

La faculté de copie privée, admise depuis longtemps et figurant à l’article L. 122-5 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle, est présentée par la doctrine majoritaire comme une exception au droit d’auteur. Elle permet à une personne de dupliquer une œuvre pour son usage personnel sans avoir à demander l’accord préalable de l’auteur et s’illustre dans deux cas : la copie pour son usage personnel faite par le propriétaire d’un exemplaire, laquelle est facile à admettre ; et celle faite par un tiers, notamment un emprunteur de l’exemplaire, laquelle s’impose aussi. On observe que la copie privée, parce qu’elle ne réalise pas une communication au public, doit être considérée comme étant hors du champ du droit d’auteur, qui trouve ici une de ses limites. Récemment, le législateur a considéré que, du fait de l’évolution des techniques, la copie privée entraînait un préjudice pour l’auteur. Il a prévu une rémunération pour le compenser. Puis, celle-ci a été cantonnée aux seules copies de source licite, en même temps qu’ont été incriminées les copies de source illicite. Mais cette pénalisation est mal vécue et peu appliquée. Et l’absence de rémunération est injuste pour l’auteur. Il serait bon de supprimer la distinction entre copie privée licite et illicite. On étendrait alors la compensation à toutes les copies privées et on se dispenserait ainsi d’assumer la charge de la répression de la copie privée illicite. On admettrait en même temps que l’auteur limite par voie contractuelle le nombre de copies privées, notamment en utilisant des mesures techniques de protection et d’information, mais sans pouvoir interdire totalement cette faculté de copie privée à l’utilisateur. / The private copying’s faculty, admitted for a long time and contained in article L. 122-5 of the Code of Intellectual Property, is presented by the majority doctrine as an exception to copyright. It allows a person to duplicate a work for his personal use without having to seek the prior consent of the author and it is illustrated in two cases : the copy for his personal use made by the owner of a copy, which is easy to admit ; and the one made by a third party, including a borrower of the copy, which is also required. It is observed that private copying, because it does not make a communication to the public, must be considered as being outside the field of copyright, which finds here one of its limits. Recently, the legislature considered that, due to the evolution of the techniques, the private copy entailed a prejudice for the author. He has provided compensation to compensate him. Then, it was confined to the only copies of lawful source, while were reprimanded the copies of illicit source. But this penalty is poorly lived and little applied. And the lack of remuneration is unfair for the author. It would be good to remove the distinction between lawful and unlawful private copying. Compensation would then be extended to all private copies and the repression’s burden of unlawful private copying would be dispensed with. In the same time, it should be admitted that the author limits the number of private copies by contractual means, especially by using digital rights management, but without being able to totally prohibit this private copying’s faculty for the user.