Blogs and newspapers report with glee that Apple have paid out a sum not unadjacent to $20M for the right to use the Swiss Railway clock in their iOS 6 operating system.
The clock, modern version pictured, dates back to 1944 and so the oft-repeated question is - what on earth is left to enforce against Apple? And the answer, as so often, is our old friend copyright which in Switzerland apparently lasts a European-standard life-plus-70-years.
This nice, slightly minimalist clock - modern in its day but looking fairly ordinary now - was commissioned by the Swiss Railway, SBB, and designed by the late Hans Hilfiker, an employee. It is licensed, for watches at least, to Mondaine. It was found to be a copyright work at least in Switzerland, for example in Handelsgericht Aargau HOR.2006.3‚ sic! 2008, 707, 711 ff. «SBB Uhren lll» (discussed in German by Mathis Berger here). And SBB themselves appear to make it available as a widget on their website.
The licence was taken following complaints from SBB. Would Apple have willingly paid the same upfront? I wonder. They made the mistake of assuming that the clock had counted down on SBB's protection after nearly 70 years, whereas since Mr Hilfiker reputedly died in 1993, there is almost another half-century left, and it may have been cheaper to settle than to recall the product - a reminder that whilst copyright in works of applied art is unharmonised, there are dangers in a worldwide launch before taking local advice in all major markets.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

You write: "They made the mistake of assuming that the clock had counted down on SBB's protection after nearly 70 years, whereas since Mr Hilfiker reputedly died in 1993, there is almost another half-century left"
ReplyDeleteBut in this case the SBB is the author or not? You write Hans Hilfiker was an employee. Under Dutch law the copyright of an enterprise ends 70 years after the first publication of the work.
Presumably the Netherlands relies on Art 1.3 and 1.4 of the Term Directive 2006/116/EC. However, this is a derogation from the general principle of Art 1.1. I don't know the specifics of Swiss law - Wikipedia which I checked (yes, all right, I know) suggests no similar derogation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Switzerland). Does anyone from Switzerland know the answer?
DeleteThank you for your interesting answer. (nothing wrong with wikipedia by the way).
ReplyDeleteI assume that is safe to say that all Member States in the European Union implemented art 1.3 and 1.4 of Directive in their legislation, but that probably Swiss law is different. Since they are not Member State of the EU this is not a strange thought.
Very interesting. I do not think the UK has implemented art 1.4 at all at present. There is a nice review of the EU divergences here: http://dare.uva.nl/document/450257
ReplyDelete