Determines whether a given subject matter qualifies for copyright protection under EU law by applying the Cofemel two-step test (concept of work + originality), grounded in fifteen CJEU judgments (including the most recent Mio/Konektra and Calinescu) and the four EU directive provisions on originality. It argues from one of two positions: pro-rightsholder (establishing that the work is original) or pro-alleged-infringer (contesting work status or originality via the four exclusion grounds — technical function, rule-dictated outcome, sweat of the brow, idea/functionality). It includes sector-specific modules for photography, software/GUI, sporting events, databases, applied art, functional texts, derivative works/critical editions, and multimedia works.
Originality in European Copyright — Build status
> Version 1.0 — Skill for the originality and concept-of-work test in EU copyright law, based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Current version
v1.0 — first public release. Integrates the EU statutory harmonization framework for originality: verbatim citations of four directive provisions that explicitly address originality — art. 1(3) Directive 2009/24/EC (computer programs), art. 3(1) Directive 96/9/EC (databases), art. 6 Directive 2006/116/EC (photographs) and art. 14 Directive (EU) 2019/790 DSM (works of visual art in the public domain). The common clause "no other criteria shall be applied" in three of the four provisions forms the statutory floor for the Cofemel rule (paragraph 29) that Member States may not impose additional requirements. Dedicated section "The EU harmonization framework for originality" in methodology/01-originality-test.md; verbatim texts also included in 02-photography.md, 03-software.md, 04-databases.md, 07-derivative-works.md.
The doctrinal core consists of fifteen key judgments (Infopaq + Painer + BSA + FAPL + Football Dataco + SAS Institute + Levola Hengelo + Cofemel + Brompton + Funke Medien + Mio/Konektra + Călinescu/FNSA + Nintendo + Renckhoff + Sony/Datel) plus Top System as a footnote mention. The skill offers the full two-step test with sector-specific modules for nine categories of works:
- Step 1 — Concept of work (Levola Hengelo, C-310/17): objective identifiability; exclusion of taste, smell and other subjective objects
- Step 2 — Originality (Infopaq + Painer + BSA + FAPL + Football Dataco + SAS Institute): author's own intellectual creation; four general exclusion grounds (technical function, rule-dictated outcome, sweat of the brow, idea/functionality)
- Consolidation (Cofemel, C-683/17): the two-step test in a single paragraph; prohibition of an additional aesthetic criterion; cumulation of copyright + design rights
- Refinement for utilitarian articles (Brompton, C-833/18): technical dictates do not automatically exclude copyright; alternatives are an indicator but not decisive; expired patent and effectiveness as indicia
- Confirmation for photographs (Renckhoff, C-161/17, paragraph 14): Painer formula explicitly generalised to photographs in general; procedural requirement of case-by-case assessment by the national court
- Functional texts (Funke Medien, C-469/17): idea/expression merger for purely informative documents; three cumulative criteria; sweat of the brow excluded; case-by-case assessment
- Software refinement (Sony/Datel, C-159/23): reproducibility test for the "expression" of a computer program; runtime variables in working memory not an expression; literal-expression formula; confirmation of clean-room reverse engineering; operational anchors for modern software disputes (cheating tools, plugins, browser extensions, runtime modders, AI agents)
- Definitive consolidation for applied art (Mio/Konektra, joined cases C-580/23 + C-795/23): no rule-exception relationship between design and copyright (operative part 1, no heightened threshold); the "unique aspect" requirement (operative part 2: free choices without a unique aspect are not creative); no presumption of creative nature of choices (paragraph 65); author's intentions = ideas (paragraph 74); pre-existing forms do not exclude originality (paragraph 78); variant of own work vs. inspired work (paragraph 79); pre-existing similar works as an indication of low or absent originality (paragraph 80); list of non-decisive factors (sources of inspiration, pre-existing forms, possibility of independent creation, recognition in professional circles)
- Critical editions and derivative works (Călinescu/FNSA, C-649/23): first CJEU application of the two-step test to critical editions of public-domain works; core formula paragraph 54 (selection/arrangement/combination of words + "skill irrelevant"); supplementary factors paragraph 55 (philological expertise, knowledge of the period, interpretation of the author's intention as means of evidence, not as autonomous grounds); paragraph 56 (composition, structure, layout, arrangement); commentary and critical apparatus also intellectual creation (paragraph 58); anti-severability rule (paragraph 64: no artificial severance of works that "have meaning only as a whole" — generally relevant); public-domain safeguard (paragraph 68: copyright on a derivative work does not grant exclusive rights over the original work); uniform scope of protection (paragraph 66)
- Multimedia works and complex matter (Nintendo / PC Box, C-355/12): first CJEU ruling on multimedia works (video games); complex matter doctrine paragraph 23 (multimedia works are complex matter that not only contain a computer program but also graphic and sound elements with their own creative value); lex specialis boundary Dir. 2009/24 / Dir. 2001/29 (the Software Directive covers only the computer-program component; the multimedia work as a whole falls under Dir. 2001/29); holistic protection (components together with the complete work protected insofar as they contribute to originality); confirmation of Infopaq paragraph 35 (concept of work) and Infopaq paragraph 38 (partial reproduction); doctrinal precursor to the Călinescu anti-severability rule in a multimedia context
Sector modules for photography, software/GUI, sporting events, databases, applied art, utilitarian articles, text/fragments, derivative works and multimedia works fully developed.
Integrated judgments
| Judgment | Case number | ECLI | Sector / significance | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infopaq International | C-5/08 | EU:C:2009:465 | general doctrine / press articles | ✅ v1.0 |
| Painer | C-145/10 | EU:C:2011:798 | photographs; "free and creative choices"; "personal touch" | ✅ v1.0 |
| BSA | C-393/09 | EU:C:2010:816 | software/GUI; technical-function exclusion | ✅ v1.0 |
| FAPL | C-403/08 & C-429/08 | EU:C:2011:631 | sporting events not a work (a contrario Painer); fragments | ✅ v1.0 |
| Football Dataco | C-604/10 | EU:C:2012:115 | databases; unified test; sweat of the brow excluded | ✅ v1.0 |
| SAS Institute | C-406/10 | EU:C:2012:259 | software: functionality/language/format not an expression; reverse engineering; manuals | ✅ v1.0 |
| Nintendo / PC Box | C-355/12 | EU:C:2014:25 | multimedia works / complex matter (paragraph 23); outer boundary Dir. 2009/24 / Dir. 2001/29; creative value of graphic/sound elements; holistic protection | ✅ v1.0 |
| Levola Hengelo | C-310/17 | EU:C:2018:899 | concept of work / step 1: objective identifiability; taste and smell excluded | ✅ v1.0 |
| Renckhoff | C-161/17 | EU:C:2018:634 | photographs (paragraph 14): confirmation of Painer formula + procedural case-by-case requirement | ✅ v1.0 |
| Cofemel | C-683/17 | EU:C:2019:721 | applied art; consolidation of the two-step test; prohibition of an additional aesthetic criterion; cumulation of copyright/design | ✅ v1.0 |
| Funke Medien | C-469/17 | EU:C:2019:623 | functional/administrative texts; three cumulative criteria for idea/expression merger; sweat of the brow excluded; case-by-case assessment | ✅ v1.0 |
| Brompton | C-833/18 | EU:C:2020:461 | utilitarian articles; refinement of technical-function exclusion; alternatives not decisive; expired patent and effectiveness as indicia | ✅ v1.0 |
| Sony/Datel | C-159/23 | EU:C:2024:887 | software: reproducibility test (paragraph 37); runtime variables not an expression; literal-expression formula (paragraph 38); clean-room reverse engineering confirmed | ✅ v1.0 |
| Mio/Konektra | C-580/23 + C-795/23 | EU:C:2025:941 | applied art; no rule-exception between design and copyright; "unique aspect" requirement (operative part 2); no presumption of creative nature (paragraph 65); intentions = ideas (paragraph 74); pre-existing similar works as indication (paragraph 80) | ✅ v1.0 |
| Călinescu/FNSA | C-649/23 | EU:C:2026:213 | critical editions / derivative works on public-domain works; core formula paragraph 54 + "skill irrelevant"; anti-severability rule (paragraph 64); public-domain safeguard (paragraph 68) | ✅ v1.0 |
Architecture
See SKILL.md for the full description. Brief summary:
methodology/— general and sector-specific testscase-law/— reference files per judgmentpositions/— argumentation structures for pro-rightsholder and pro-alleged-infringerworkflow.md— step-by-step procedureSKILL.md— skill metadata and scope
Scope
This skill addresses EU-level harmonization only. National implementation in each Member State is outside scope and must be consulted separately by the practitioner.
Anti-hallucination rule
The skill cites exclusively from judgments for which a reference file exists in case-law/. For all other references, write "case reference to be added" and provide only the legal principle.
Author
Built by Joris Deene, a lawyer and partner at Everest Law (Belgium) specialising in intellectual property, IT law, AI law, GDPR/data protection and media law. Contact: joris.deene@everest-law.be