İFADE ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜ VE TELİF HAKLARI DENGELEMESİ - Avrupa Mahkemeleri İçtihadı –

Öz

İfade özgürlüğü ve telif hakları, Avrupa demokrasilerinin temel değerlerindendir. Bu iki değerin birbirlerini tamamladıkları, bu nedenle çatışmalarının söz konusu olamayacağını kabul eden geleneksel Amerikan anlayışının aksine özellikle dijital platformların yaygınlaşmasıyla ifade özgürlüğü ve telif hakları arasında adil bir denge kurulması konusunda giderek artan bir ihtiyaç hâsıl olmuştur. Elbette bu dengeleme, somut uyuşmazlıklar bağlamında nihai olarak yargı mercileri tarafından yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Avrupa’da farklı platformlarda nihai karar mercileri olan Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ile Avrupa Adalet Divanı’nın, ifade özgürlüğü-telif hakları dengelemesi konusundaki içtihatlarını inceleyerek Avrupa genelinde ifade özgürlüğü ve telif hakları ilişkisine dair kabul edilen genel ilkeleri ortaya koymaktır. Bu bağlamda öncelikle ifade özgürlüğü ve telif hakları ilişkisi ile kabul edilen teorilere ilişkin genel bir açıklama yapılmıştır. Daha sonra iki Avrupa Mahkemesinin konuya dair içtihadından örnekler verilmiştir. Sonuç olarak iki mahkemenin görev tanımlarıdoğrultusunda konuya yaklaşımlarındaki farklılık da dikkate alınarak Avrupa’nın, ifade özgürlüğü ve telif hakları uyuşmazlıklarının çözümüne dair genel bakış açısı açıklanmış ve değerlendirilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İfade Özgürlüğü, Telif Hakları, İfade Özgürlüğünün Sınırları, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Avrupa Adalet Divanı

STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND COPYRIGHTS - Case-Law of the European Courts

Öz

Freedom of expression and copyrights are amongst the fundamental values of European democracies. In contrast to the traditional American perception of copyrights and freedom of expression relationship which accepts that there can not be a conflict between these two rights as they actually complete each other, there seems to be an increasing necessity to strike a fair balance between these two fundamental values especially with the digital platforms becoming widespread throughout the world. This balancing, of course is carried out ultimately by judicial mechanisms in the context of concrete cases. Accordingly, purpose of this study is to put forward the general principles agreed-on in Europe by examining the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice which are the ultimate decision-makers in Europe on different platforms. In this context, first, a general assessment about the copyrightsfreedom of expression relationship and the theories adopted is made continuing with the analyse of decisions from two European Courts’ caselaw on this matter. Finally, the general point of view on the settlement of copyrights and freedom of expression contradictions in Europe is assessed also by taking into account the differences on the approach of these two courts regarding this topic

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Freedom of Expression, Copyrights, Limitations on Freedom of Expression, European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Jus

Kaynakça

1. Akademik Kaynaklar Bonadio, Enrico ve Santo, Mauro (2012). ISPs cannot be ordered to adopt general and preventive filtering systems: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, S.7/4, https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/7/4/234/824540
2. Drassinower, Abraham (2003) A Rights-Based View of the Idea/ Expression Dichotomy in
3. Copyright Law: Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, S.14/1. Fider, Alex. F. S. (2003). Copyright as a Limitation on Freedom of Expression: Media Asia, S.29/4.
4. Geiger, Christophe ve Izyumenko Elena (2014). Copyright on the Human Rights’ Trial
5. RedeŞning the Boundaries of Exclusivity Through Freedom of Expression: International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, S. 45/3. Geiger, Christophe ve Izyumenko, Elena (2019). The Constitutionalization of Intellectual
6. Property Law in the EU and the Funke Medien, Pelham and Spiegel Online Decisions of the CJEU: Progress, But Still Some Way to Go : Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies Research Paper No. 2019-09, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3472852
7. Izyumenko, Elena (2016). The Freedom of Expression Contours of Copyright in the Digital
8. Era: A European Perspective: The Journal of World Intellectual Property, S.19/3-4. Keyder, Virginia (2012). Introductory Note To The European Court Of Justıce: Scarlet

9. Extended Sa V. Socıété Belge Des Auteurs, Composıteurs, Et Edıteurs Scrl (Sabam): International Legal Materials, S.51/2. Samuelson, Pamela (2003). Copyright and Freedom of Expression in Historical Perspective
10. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, S. 10/2. Snijders, Thom ve Van Deursen, Stijn (2019). The Road Not Taken – the CJEU Sheds Light on the Role of Fundamental Rights in the European Copyright Framework – a Case Note on the Pelham, Spiegel Online and Funke Medien Decisions: International Review of Intellectual
11. Property and Competition Law, S. 50, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40319-019- 0
12. Torremans, Paul L. C. (2014) Ashby Donald and others v France, application 36769/08
13. EctHr, 5th section, judgment of 10 January 2013: Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, S. 4/1.
14. Voorhoof, Dirk ve Hİedt-Rasmussen, Inger (2013). Case Law, Court of Human Rights
15. Ashby Donald v France, Copyright versus Freedom Expression: https://inforrm.org/ /01/26/case-law-court-of-human-rights-ashby-donald-v-france-copyright-versus- freedom-expression-dirk-voorhoof-and-inger-hoedt-rasmussen/#more-19417.
16. Voorhoof, Dirk (2015 version). Freedom of Expression and Information and the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU. Overview and highlights: Conference Paper Justice For Free Expression In 2014 - A review of global freedom of expression jurisprudence in Columbia University, https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/ 6900863 /file/6900864.pdf. Mahkeme Kararları AİHM
17. A.D. v. Hollanda, B. No: 21962/93, (Avrupa İnsan Hakları Komisyonu), 11/1/1994
18. Akdeniz v. Türkiye, B. No: 20877/10, 11/3/2014
19. Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portekiz [BD], B. No: 73049/01, 11/1/2007
20. Ashby Donald ve Diğerleri v. Fransa, B. No: 36769/08, 10/1/2013
21. Khurshid Mustafa ve Tarzibachi v. İsveç, B. No: 23883/06, 16/12/2008
22. Melnychuk v. Ukraine, B. No: 28743/03, 5/7/2005, 2005-IX
23. Neij ve Sunde Kolmisoppi v. İsveç, B. No: 40397/12, 19/02/2013 AAD
24. C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM—Socie´te´ belge des auteurs, compositeurs et e´diteurs SCRL, (AAD, 24/11/2011)
25. C-201/13 Deckmyn ve Vrijheidsfonds v.Vandersteen ve Diğerleri, (AAD, 3/9/2014)
26. C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH ve Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH (UPC Telekabel), (AAD, 27/3/2014) Diğer
27. Eldred v. Ashcroft, Amerikan Yüksek Mahkemesi, (2003, 537 U.S. 186) https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019L0790&from=EN