Skill: Originality and Concept of Work in European Copyright (CJEU)

Purpose

To build a methodical analysis of the question whether a concrete object (text, photograph, software, database, utilitarian article, sound recording, design, …) is protected by copyright under EU law, based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The skill produces a developed argumentation from one of two positions:

• Pro-rightsholder — argue why the object qualifies as a work and is original
• Pro-alleged-infringer — argue why the object does not qualify as a work or is not original

Version 1.0 — first public release. Integrates the EU statutory harmonization framework for originality: verbatim citations of the four directive provisions that explicitly address originality:

• Art. 1(3) Directive 2009/24/EC (computer programs — "author's own intellectual creation" + "no other criteria")
• Art. 3(1) Directive 96/9/EC (databases — "author's own intellectual creation" by "selection or arrangement" + "no other criteria")
• Art. 6 Directive 2006/116/EC (photographs — "author's own intellectual creation" + "no other criteria" + optional protection of "other photographs")
• Art. 14 Directive (EU) 2019/790 (DSM) (works of visual art in the public domain — anti-reviving regime)

These provisions constitute the statutory floor of the Cofemel two-step test. The common "no other criteria shall be applied" clause in three of the four provisions is the doctrinal basis for the Cofemel rule (C-683/17, paragraph 29) that Member States may not impose additional requirements. The skill makes the doctrinal connection between primary EU law and CJEU case law explicit in a dedicated section "The EU harmonization framework for originality" in 01-originality-test.md. Verbatim texts are also included in the relevant sectoral modules (02-photography.md, 03-software.md, 04-databases.md, 07-derivative-works.md).

The doctrinal core consists of fifteen key CJEU judgments and one footnote judgment (Top System): Infopaq (C-5/08), Painer (C-145/10), BSA (C-393/09), FAPL (C-403/08 & C-429/08), Football Dataco (C-604/10), SAS Institute (C-406/10), Levola Hengelo (C-310/17), Cofemel (C-683/17), Brompton (C-833/18), Funke Medien (C-469/17), Renckhoff (C-161/17), Sony/Datel (C-159/23), Mio/Konektra (C-580/23 + C-795/23), Călinescu/FNSA (C-649/23) and Nintendo/PC Box (C-355/12), with Top System (C-13/20) as a footnote mention.

Scope

Within scope	Outside scope
Whether an object is protected by copyright	Infringement analysis (reproduction, communication to the public)
The originality requirement under EU law	Term of protection
The EU concept of work (objective identifiability)	Exceptions and limitations (quotation, parody, …)
Sector-specific refinements based on CJEU case law	Neighbouring rights
Two positions: pro-rightsholder and pro-alleged-infringer	Copyright contracts and licensing
	Sui generis database right
	Design protection as such (but: cumulation with copyright via Cofemel test is in scope)
	National implementation in Member States (this skill addresses EU-level harmonization only; national law must be consulted separately)

The two-step test

The CJEU has progressively built the EU concept of work. Since Cofemel (C-683/17, paragraph 29) the concept of work is explicitly tested in two cumulative steps.

Step 1 — Objective identifiability (concept of work in the narrow sense)

Is the object sufficiently precisely and objectively identifiable? It must be an expression that is recognisable and unambiguously delimitable for third parties, even though this expression need not be permanent (Levola Hengelo, C-310/17, paragraph 40). Subjective, sensory or non-objectifiable experiences (taste, smell, fleeting impression) do not qualify (Levola operative part). The objectivity requirement serves a dual legal-certainty function: both the authorities responsible for enforcement and the third parties against whom protection is invoked must be able to clearly and precisely identify which object is protected (Cofemel paragraphs 32-33).

Full treatment in methodology/00-work-concept.md.

Step 2 — Originality (author's own intellectual creation)

Is the object original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation (Infopaq, C-5/08, paragraph 37; consolidated in Cofemel paragraph 29)? It must be the expression of free and creative choices that reflect the author's personality (Painer, C-145/10, paragraphs 88-92), not dictated by technical function (BSA, C-393/09, paragraphs 48-49; Brompton, C-833/18), external rules (FAPL, C-403/08 + C-429/08), convention or banality.

Operational sub-tests:

• "Own" — originating from the author, not derived
• "Intellectual creation" — the fruit of mental effort; no "sweat of the brow" (Football Dataco, C-604/10; Funke Medien, C-469/17)
• "Selection, arrangement and combination" in an original manner (Infopaq paragraph 45)
• Free and creative choices that reflect personality through a personal touch (Painer)
• No exclusion ground: not dictated by technical function, rules, sweat of the brow or idea/functionality

Full treatment in methodology/01-originality-test.md.

Both steps are cumulative: an object must satisfy both to qualify as a copyright-protected work (Cofemel paragraph 29).

File structure

originality-in-european-copyright/
├── SKILL.md                                       (this file)
├── methodology/
│   ├── 00-work-concept.md                        [Levola Hengelo + confirmatory cross-references to Cofemel, Brompton, Funke Medien, Mio/Konektra, Călinescu, Nintendo]
│   ├── 01-originality-test.md                    [all 15 judgments + EU harmonization framework (art. 1(3) Dir. 2009/24, art. 3(1) Dir. 96/9, art. 6 Dir. 2006/116, art. 14 Dir. 2019/790 DSM) + Cofemel consolidation + Brompton + Funke Medien + Sony/Datel + Mio/Konektra uniqueness requirement + Călinescu anti-severability + skill irrelevant + public-domain safeguard]
│   ├── 02-photography.md                         [Painer + Renckhoff + Cofemel + verbatim art. 6 Dir. 2006/116]
│   ├── 03-software.md                            [BSA + SAS Institute + Sony/Datel + Nintendo outer limit + Top System footnote + verbatim art. 1(3) Dir. 2009/24]
│   ├── 04-databases.md                           [Football Dataco + verbatim art. 3(1) Dir. 96/9]
│   ├── 05-applied-art.md                         [Cofemel + Brompton + Mio/Konektra (three consolidated key judgments)]
│   ├── 06-text-and-fragments.md                  [Infopaq + Funke Medien + brief mention of Călinescu with cross-reference to 07]
│   ├── 07-derivative-works.md                    [Călinescu/FNSA as key judgment + verbatim art. 14 Dir. 2019/790 DSM anti-reviving regime; room for future case law on translations/adaptations/arrangements]
│   └── 08-multimedia-works.md                    [Nintendo/PC Box as key judgment for complex matter; room for future NFT/AR-VR/AI-multimedia case law]
├── case-law/
│   ├── infopaq-c-5-08.md
│   ├── painer-c-145-10.md
│   ├── bsa-c-393-09.md
│   ├── fapl-c-403-08.md
│   ├── football-dataco-c-604-10.md
│   ├── sas-institute-c-406-10.md
│   ├── levola-c-310-17.md
│   ├── cofemel-c-683-17.md
│   ├── brompton-c-833-18.md
│   ├── renckhoff-c-161-17.md
│   ├── funke-medien-c-469-17.md
│   ├── sony-datel-c-159-23.md
│   ├── mio-konektra-c-580-23-c-795-23.md
│   ├── calinescu-c-649-23.md
│   └── nintendo-c-355-12.md
├── positions/
│   ├── pro-rightsholder.md                       [concept of work + 8 sectors + horizontal lines of argument on the EU statutory floor (four argument lines A-D)]
│   └── pro-alleged-infringer.md                  [concept of work + 8 sectors + horizontal lines of attack on the EU statutory floor (four lines of attack F-I)]
└── workflow.md

Methodology

1. Identify the object and the sector. What is it concretely (text, photograph, software, utilitarian article, …)? Which sectoral case law is relevant?
2. Identify the position. Is the user arguing from the standpoint of the author/rightsholder, or from the standpoint of the alleged infringer? In case of doubt: ask explicitly.
3. Consult the relevant case-law files in case-law/ for the applicable judgments.
4. Apply the two-step test (concept of work → originality) according to methodology/.
5. Develop the argumentation following the corresponding position file in positions/.
6. Anticipate the counter-argument from the other position.

For the detailed procedure see workflow.md.

Anti-hallucination rule

This skill cites exclusively from judgments for which a reference file exists in case-law/. For each judgment referenced in the analysis, the corresponding file must exist and contain the cited paragraph. For other CJEU judgments or for national case law: write "case reference to be added" and provide only the legal principle.

Citation form

Standard form for CJEU judgments:

CJEU [date], C-[case number], [short name], ECLI:[ECLI].

For example: CJEU 16 July 2009, C-5/08, Infopaq International, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465.

Output form

Standard inline in chat. For developed legal argumentation (procedural document, advice, formal notice): offer a markdown artifact.

Limitations

• Version 1.0 — covers EU-level harmonization only. National implementation in each Member State is outside scope and must be consulted separately by the practitioner.
• No factual assessment of the work itself — the skill provides the legal argumentation structure; the factual assessment of whether an object is objectively identifiable or displays original choices remains the responsibility of the user and ultimately of the court.
• Strict scope — the skill addresses only the concept of work (step 1) and originality (step 2). Exploitation rights (reproduction, communication to the public, distribution, modification right — including the question left unanswered in Sony/Datel), exceptions and limitations (art. 5 Directive 2001/29, decompilation under art. 6 Software Directive), anti-circumvention of TPMs (art. 7(1)(c) Software Directive, art. 6 InfoSoc Directive) and the interplay with fundamental rights fall outside scope and belong in separate skills.