Eleonora Rosati in IPKat segnala le Conclusioni 17.06.2025 dell’AG Emiliou in C-590/23, CG e YN c. Pelham+altri: serve la riconoscibilità dell’imitazione (e quindi anche del lavoro imitato, direi: passaggio non scontato, che meriterebbe approfondimento) per aversi pastiche.
Si tratta di un altra fase della lunga lite Pelham, spedita nuovamente in sede europea dal BGH, concernente la ripresa di due secondi della canzone <Metall auf Metall> dei Kraftwerk da parte della impresa di produzione Pelham GmbH nella hip hop song <Nur mir>.
Qui riferisco solo del pastiche, previsto dalla dir. 2001/29 come eccezione facoltativa all’art. 5.3.k, e rimasta tale anche successivamente, se non per la disciplina delle piattaforme introdotta dalla dir 790 del 2019 (da noi attuata nel l’art. 102 novbies c. 2 lett. b) l. autore)
<<81. It follows from the foregoing considerations that a ‘pastiche’, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc Directive, is an artistic creation which (i) evokes an existing work, by adopting its distinctive ‘aesthetic language’ while (ii) being noticeably different from the source imitated, and (iii) is intended to be recognised as an imitation. The purpose pursued with that overt stylistic imitation is irrelevant. The use of protected elements from works or other subject matters, including ‘samples’ of phonograms, falls under the corresponding exception where it results in an artistic creation presenting those essential characteristics.
82. The second question of the BGH concerns, specifically, whether the existence of such a ‘pastiche’ requires determining the subjective intent of the user, or whether it is sufficient for the ‘pastiche’ character to be recognisable by a person familiar with the material reused and who has the intellectual understanding required to perceive it. It calls, in my view, for a brief answer. On the one hand, it stems from the above definition that a ‘pastiche’ is characterised, inter alia, by the fact that it is intended to be recognised as an imitation (by contrast to plagiarism). Thus, whether the user had that intent is, indeed, decisive. On the other hand, it seems to me that, to guarantee the necessary legal certainty (and to avoid, in particular, that bad-faith users retrospectively present plagiarism as ‘pastiche’ in the event of infringement proceedings), that intent should be assessed objectively. Accordingly, the ‘pastiche’ nature of the use should be evident in the end result. It should be indicated (in some way) therein or, at least, recognisable as such by the viewer or listener familiar with the source.
83. Accordingly, the ‘pastiche’ exception laid down in Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc Directive provides limited leeway for creative reuse of protected material. ‘Samples’ and other borrowings of such material which do not serve such an artistic, overt stylistic imitation are not covered by that exception. For instance, it cannot apply to the reuse of a ‘sample’ taken from a phonogram, such as that embodying ‘Metall auf Metall’, to create a new musical work in a completely different style, such as ‘Nur mir’. (127) The remaining exceptions and limitations offer similarly limited room, as will be discussed in the following sections>>.
Poi:
<<107. As we saw, under the current exceptions and limitations, protected material may be freely reused only if it contributes to an overtly imitative artistic creation (‘pastiche’), as a ‘dialogic’ reference to the source work (‘quotation’) or as a humoristic or critical détournement (‘parody’). That system never permits the appropriation of such material, selected ‘merely’ for its aesthetic value, and its reuse in a new creation. That is so irrespective of (i) the extent and value (both creative and economic) of the material borrowed and (ii) the amount of input added by the user and, thus, the ‘creative intensity’ of that new creation. It seems rather obvious that the weight of the claim to intellectual property of the rightholder concerned, under Article 13 and/or Article 17(2) of the Charter, depends on the first parameter, while the weight of the claim to freedom of the arts of the new creator, under Article 13 of the Charter, depends on the second. As the examples given in point 32 above illustrate, there may be a great deal of innovation and cultural value associated with such reuse. (155) However, the current system does not leave room for such nuances>>.
Circa poi il bilanciamento col principioo costituzionale della libertà di espressione artistica (art. 13 Carta dir. fond. UE), per l’AG questa eccezione/limitazine così disciplinata viola tale libertà , se riferita ai diritti coonnessi (essenzialmene a quelli la cui ratio sia la protezione degli investimenti economici); che sia invece ragionevole (fair balance) se riferita al diritto di autore (§§ 115 ss e 126 ss)