Is it illegal in Switzerland to download scientific books from sci-hub?
<p>In <a href="https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/150374/958">a thread on Academia.se</a>, we are discussing the legality of using Sci-hub in Switzerland; for instance, for a university student to download articles used to write their thesis.</p>

<p><a href="https://openscience.hes-so.ch/data/documents/19-Factsheet-Open-Science-Switzerland-11306.pdf" rel="noreferrer">This document</a> mentions that </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The use of Sci-Hub, however, is not illegal in Switzerland</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is that correct? 
The relevant articles seem to be Articles 19 and 20 <a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html" rel="noreferrer">here</a>, but we are unsure about the scopes of the different letters in 19.1 and the difference between "using" and "making a copy".</p>

<p><a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="noreferrer">Article 19</a> of Swiss copyright law says that "Published works may be <strong>used</strong> for private use" (emphasis added), though excludes computer programs from that exception. "Private use" is defined to include not only private use, it extends to use by friends and relatives, and in educational settings. But, para 3 say that <em>except for</em> personal use including that by friends and relatives, you cannot <strong>copy</strong> art, music, record performances, or copy substantially from works commercially available. (Confusing perhaps because the law refers to using versus copying). The law does not explicitly permit copying for personal use, but it does not prohibit it (whereas para 3 does explicitly prohibit other kinds of copying).</p>

<p>Art. 20 then says that you do not have to pay for a copy made for personal use (para 1), but if you "use" a work in a private use context though not the personal use context defines in 19(1)(a), you have to pay. So the letters and numbers are there to allow you to distinguish whether it's legal to use, to copy, and whether you have to pay.</p>

<p>This final sentence in Art. 19</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Copies which are made by accessing works that are lawfully made
  available are neither subject to the restriction of private use under
  this Article nor are they included in the claims for remuneration
  under Article 20.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>is confusing. Pirate sites are not themselves legal in Switzerland, and a person who downloads from them is not accessing works that are lawfully made. But still, personal use is legal, copying in that context is legal, and no remuneration is owed, and the law does not restrict personal use copying to only legal sources. </p>

<p><em>Warning: This answer is ludicrously long. <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/52258/3209">@user6726's answer</a> is sufficient for most purposes. However, I wondered &quot;What if personal use copying didn't cover the download, could it be saved by education or research exceptions?&quot; and stumbled into an unexpectedly deep research rabbit hole, which I figured I might as well share.</em></p>
<h1>Introduction</h1>
<p>There's some surprising nuance here and Swiss law takes quite a unique and permissive approach. Your question glosses over certain distinctions: Purpose of use, using vs. downloading, and book vs. article, but all these factors could make a difference. Additionally, while I'll assume Sci-hub to be an illegal source, it's basically impossible to fully examine this question without also diving into the legal vs. illegal source distinction.</p>
<p>With that said, I believe most uses of Sci-hub possible under this question are legal in Switzerland with the exception of</p>
<ol>
<li>Explicitly downloading copies for scientific research</li>
<li>Explicitly downloading copies of a book or individually offered article for school use.</li>
</ol>
<p>To see why I think this, grab some coffee or other relatively harmless self-medication of your choosing and read on:</p>
<h1>Purpose of use and <em>using</em> vs. <em>copying</em> – Article 10</h1>
<p>For <em>using</em> vs. <em>making a copy</em>, <em>using</em> is almost certainly defined by <a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a10" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 10</a>, which lists copying, transmitting, distributing, performing, etc. as &quot;uses.&quot;</p>
<p>In this answer, I'm covering personal use, school use and use for scientific research. Note that the definition of &quot;use&quot; matters here for determining which purpose(s) of use a particular action falls under. To take your example of writing a thesis, downloading an article for informational or maybe even citational purposes could still be within the realm of personal use, since there's no direct use (in the Article 10 sense) in the educational setting. However, downloading that same article to copy a figure into your thesis, or to share it with classmates (as opposed to personal friends) would likely fall outside the realm of personal use and brings us into school use.</p>
<h1>Private copy legislation – Article 19</h1>
<p>Swiss law considers both &quot;personal use&quot; and &quot;school use&quot; as forms of private use. <a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 19(1)</a> of the Copyright Act (CopA):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Published works may be used for private use. Private use means:</p>
<p>a. any personal use of a work or use within a circle of persons closely connected to each other, such as relatives or friends;</p>
<p>b. any use of a work by a teacher and his class for educational purposes;</p>
<p>c. the copying of a work in enterprises, public administrations, institutions, commissions and similar bodies for internal information or documentation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Edit:</strong> On a second reading of my sources<sup>1</sup>, I missed two things here. I should have emphasized that &quot;school use&quot; is limited to &quot;educational purposes,&quot; i.e. teaching/learning as the official versions make clearer, and not any imaginable use within a school building. Additionally, there's one more translation issue at play which makes things even less certain. The French and Italian versions appear to be the same as the provided English, though the German and Romansh versions appear to say something along the lines of &quot;use of a work by a teacher <em><strong>for</strong></em> his class,&quot; in other words the school use exception only applies to the teacher. Stephan Jauner reports that the French version should be considered controlling<sup>1</sup>, but just keep in mind that my conclusion is a bit less certain because of this.</p>
<p>Article 19(3) puts introduces a limitation which applies to the school use in (1)(b) but not the stricter personal use in (1)(a):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The following are not permitted outside the private sphere defined in paragraph 1 letter a:</p>
<p>a. the complete or substantial[ly complete] copying of [work specimens] obtainable commercially; [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note I've adjusted the provided translation slightly according to the official versions (<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz)">DE</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="French Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d’auteur)">FR</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/it/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Italian Copyright Act (Legge sul diritto d’autore)">IT</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/rm/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Romansh Copyright Act (Lescha davart ils dretgs d’autur)">RM</a>)<sup>2</sup>. I've left out b, c &amp; d as they aren't applicable to literary works.</p>
<p>Then there's Article 19(3<sup>bis</sup>). Turns out @user6726 really undersold it by calling it &quot;confusing&quot; in <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/52258/3209">their answer</a>. Entire articles are dedicated to analysing it. I'm not going to quote it; the French and German versions <a href="https://www.advocomplex.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/WE-medialex-02-11.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">don't even match entirely</a> (DE). Instead I'll summarize the relevant commentary<sup>3</sup>:</p>
<p>Article 19(3<sup>bis</sup>) was brought into force in 2008 to address legal internet downloads. Due to a technicality, these downloads were generally subject to double remuneration under Article 20. Additionally, it's usually difficult to download a partial work to comply with the 19(3)(a) restriction. The legislators overshot, though the extent is debated. Most agree though that due to its wording, the 19(3) restrictions no longer apply to downloads from legal sources. So while 19(3) still applies for your Sci-hub download, we just need to keep this distinction in mind.</p>
<p>Since it's related and you mention it in your question I'll quickly address Article 20 on owing remuneration. By Article 20(4), this is generally not handled by the private user so we don't really need to consider it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Claims for remuneration may only be asserted by the authorised collective rights management organisations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is typical for jurisdictions allowing private copy, any remuneration owed by the private copier is not usually a direct obligation and is transparently handled by collective rights management organisations.</p>
<p>Note that the wording of 19(1)(c) and 19(3)(a) of only the French version was updated April 1, 2020. This appears to have been to correct some awkward grammar, so shouldn't impact the analysis below (which occurs in German case law anyways). That's right, they didn't update 19(3<sup>bis</sup>). Yes, I'm annoyed.</p>
<h1>Private copy case law – Article 19</h1>
<p><em>Note: I'm not fluent in German, so I quote the German in addition to my own Google-assisted translation in case anyone spots a substantial error.</em></p>
<p>First we'll cover the 2019 decision <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?lang=de&amp;type=show_document&amp;highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F145-III-72%3Ade" rel="nofollow noreferrer">145 III 72</a> (DE) which I'll cite as <em>Swisscom</em>, some commentary is also available at <a href="https://www.lawinside.ch/726/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">LawInside</a> (FR). In it, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Supreme_Court_of_Switzerland" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Federal Supreme Court</a> explicitly acknowledged that private copy from illegal sources is legal. <em>Swisscom</em> 2.2.2:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] die Tätigkeit des Nutzers, der die streitgegenständlichen Internetseiten aufruft und die streitgegenständlichen Filme konsumiert, von der Eigengebrauchsschranke gemäss Art. 19 Abs. 1 lit. a URG gedeckt ist, und zwar unabhängig davon, ob es sich um eine rechtmässig oder eine widerrechtlich zugänglich gemachte Quelle handelt. Der Gesetzgeber hat es anlässlich der Revision des Urheberrechts abgelehnt, eine Bestimmung einzuführen, die eine Vervielfältigung zum Eigengebrauch von Werken aus illegaler Quelle untersagt hätte [...] Werden urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke aus dem Internet zum Eigengebrauch heruntergeladen, liegt daher nach Art. 19 URG auch dann keine Verletzung durch den Nutzer vor, wenn die betreffende (abgespeicherte) Kopiervorlage unrechtmässig im Internet zugänglich gemacht wurde [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] the activity of the user who accesses the disputed websites and consumes the disputed films is covered by the bounds of private use in accordance with Art. 19 para. 1 letter a CopA, independent of whether it is a source made accessible legally or illegally. On revision of the copyright law, the legislature declined to introduce a provision that would have prohibited reproduction for the private use of works from illegal sources [...] When copyright protected works are downloaded from the internet for private use, there is therefore no violation by the user according to Art. 19 CopA when the given (saved) source copy has been made illegally accessible on the internet [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While this case specifically involved the personal use in Article 19(1)(a), the court appears to generalize to all Article 19 private use, notably using the generic term &quot;private use&quot; (DE: <em>Eigengebrauch</em>) instead of &quot;personal use&quot; (DE: <em>Werkverwendung im persönlichen Bereich</em>) as is found in 19(1)(a).</p>
<p>However, school use has additional restrictions through 19(3) that aren't as easy to interpret. For that, we're going to be looking mainly at case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?lang=de&amp;type=show_document&amp;highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F140-III-616%3Ade" rel="nofollow noreferrer">140 III 616</a> (DE), some commentary is also available at <a href="https://swissblawg.ch/2014/12/4a2952014-dokumentenlieferdienst-der.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">swissblawg</a> (DE). I'll cite this decision as <em>ETH Zürich</em> after the defendant, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETH_Zurich" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich</a>. At issue was that ETH Zürich was operating a document delivery service, whereby for a fee, they would scan articles in their library and email them to a private user (<em>ETH Zürich</em> A.b). They won the case on all points.</p>
<p>There are significant differences between the Sci-hub scenario and the <em>ETH Zürich</em>. Before we take the court's findings as applicable, we need to bridge this gap. Differences:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>The copying is from an analog source.</strong> Swiss copyright law is generally technology neutral. Whether the copying is analog or digital is irrelevant (<em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.4.1). We can therefore ignore this difference.</li>
<li><strong>A third party is doing the copying.</strong> Article 19(2) allows certain third parties to act on behalf of someone exercising private copy rights. However, the third party is held to the 19(3) restrictions even if the private copier isn't (<em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.5.1-3.5.2). Since third parties are more restricted, if it's legal for them, it's legal for the private user.</li>
<li><strong>The copying is possibly commercial.</strong> Commercial copying is generally more restrictive, so if ETH Zürich's actions are legal, it would also be legal for the private user. As a public university some jurisdictions may accord extra rights, however, this fact isn't relevant to the decision other than making it even clearer ETH Zürich qualifies as a third party under 19(2). None of these distinctions end up being discussed in the decision, so we can safely ignore this difference.</li>
<li><strong>The copying is from a legal source.</strong> Despite the allowance of illegal sources in Swiss private copy law, there are tangible differences here. In addition to the Article 19(3<sup>bis</sup>) difference, the court points out that the library must have legal access to the work in question (<em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.4.2). Despite the differences<sup>4</sup>, the court proceeds to an analysis of whether the copy action breaches the 19(3)(a) restriction, which is exactly what we need given our illegal source. So while this Sci-hub question and <em>ETH Zürich</em> take different paths to 19(3), I think the conclusions are the same.</li>
</ol>
<p>With those differences settled, I believe we can take the court's findings as applicable.</p>
<p>A plain reading of 19(3) tells us that purpose of use matters, though it's nice to see the court succinctly confirm this (<em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.5.3):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] eine vollständige oder weitgehend vollständige Vervielfältigung im Handel erhältlicher Werkexemplare zum Schulgebrauch (Art. 19 Abs. 1 lit. b URG) oder zum betriebsinternen Gebrauch (Art. 19 Abs. 1 lit. c URG) in jedem Fall verboten ist, [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] a complete or substantially complete reproduction of commercially available work specimens for school use (Art. 19 para. 1 letter b CopA) or business-internal use (Art. 19 para. 1 letter c CopA) is forbidden in every case, [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note that this prohibition does not apply to personal use as defined in 19(1)(a).</p>
<p>What a plain reading doesn't tell us is the definition of a &quot;work specimen&quot; (DE: <em>Werkexemplar</em>). For that we go to <em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.6.3, which itself cites established law going back to 1989:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] der Begriff der &quot;Werkexemplare&quot; in Art. 19 Abs. 3 lit. a URG nicht mit dem Werkbegriff nach Art. 2 URG gleichzustellen ist: Nicht der einzelne Zeitschriftenartikel aus einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift, eine einzelne Kurzgeschichte aus einem Sammelband oder ein Musikstück einer Langspielplatte stellt das Werkexemplar dar, sondern das im Handel angebotene Exemplar in Form der Zeitschrift, des Sammelbands oder der Langspielplatte [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] the term of &quot;work specimens&quot; in Art. 19 para. 3 letter a CopA is not to be equated with the term &quot;work&quot; from Art. 2 CopA: Not the single journal artical from a scientific journal, a short story from an anthology nor a piece of music from an LP represents a work specimen, but the specimen offered in commerce in the form of the journal, the anthology or the LP [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The court spends a considerable amount of time on this point (<em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.6.3-3.6.7), that the &quot;specimen offered in commerce,&quot; or &quot;sales unit&quot; for short, is the benchmark for measuring a &quot;complete work specimen.&quot; In particular, they note that publishers could make the article the sales unit if they wanted to (<em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.6.5). But what if an individually offered article is also available within a journal? While the court is clear that copying that same article from the journal is still legal (<em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.6.5), it's less clear about copying that article from the individualized offering. My opinion having read <em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.6.3-3.6.7 entirely (though I note again I'm not fluent in German), is that the individualized article is the sales unit in that case and cannot be copied whole from that source even if it's additionally offered as a portion of a sales unit elsewhere.</p>
<p>Taking this case law and applying it directly to Sci-hub downloads, any individualized offering, whether a book, journal or article cannot legally be downloaded for school use. If Sci-hub offers a journal or other compilation though, it would be legal per the above reasoning to download single articles from that compilation. However, I'll note there's two related aspects of this ruling that I find make it difficult to apply directly to what is effectively an illegal publisher making free offerings. One, the concept of a sales unit seems to break down completely. Two, what's to stop an illegal publisher from arbitrarily combining articles to circumvent this sales unit distinction? That said, both my concerns are on the publisher side, it's not clear either of these concerns would have a direct impact to the legality with respect to the private user who might not know that the source is illegal.</p>
<h1>Scientific research – Article 24d</h1>
<p><a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a24d" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 24d(1)</a> allows technical copying for the purposes of scientific research, but explicitly requires legal access, probably ruling out Sci-hub:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For the purposes of scientific research, it is permissible to reproduce a work if the copying is due to the use of a technical process and if the works to be copied can be lawfully accessed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note this is an incredibly new article, only being in effect since April 1, 2020 so there's unlikely to be any case law on this yet. From brief research into why only technical copying is allowed, it appears this article was specifically aimed at facilitating text and data mining.</p>
<h1>Temporary copy – Article 24a</h1>
<p>If your download happens not to be legal through Article 19, it may still be legal through <a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a24a" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 24a</a>. It specifically allows temporary downloads for technical reasons, such as the downloads an internet browser makes during regular browsing (manually making a specific download copy wouldn't count under this article). In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?lang=de&amp;type=show_document&amp;highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F133-III-473%3Ade" rel="nofollow noreferrer">133 III 473</a> 4.4, the Federal Supreme Court in fact declared this kind of temporary technical download legal even before adoption of this Article, while additionally citing the yet-to-come-into-force legislation of 24a:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] Für das Lesen der Electronic Papers bzw. der Online-Angebote auf dem Bildschirm muss das Werk über das Internet abgerufen werden, womit geschützte Daten im Arbeitsspeicher oder anderen Pufferspeichern des Nachfragers gespeichert werden und urheberrechtlich gesehen eine Vervielfältigung vorgenommen wird. Diese flüchtige Speicherung erlaubt jedoch keine über die Wahrnehmung hinausgehende Werkverwendung; sie ist vielmehr Teil der Werkvermittlung. Ihr kommt damit keine eigenständige wirtschaftliche Bedeutung zu, weshalb sie vom Vervielfältigungsrecht des Urhebers auszunehmen ist (BÜHLER, a.a.O., S. 166; vgl. auch den Entwurf eines neuen Art. 24a URG, wonach vorübergehende Vervielfältigungen eines Werks zulässig sind, wenn sie flüchtig oder begleitend sind, einen integralen und wesentlichen Teil eines technischen Verfahrens darstellen, ausschliesslich der Übertragung in einem Netz zwischen Dritten durch einen Vermittler oder einer rechtmässigen Nutzung dienen und keine eigenständige wirtschaftliche Bedeutung haben; <a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2006/3443.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BBl 2006 S. 3444</a>). [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] In order to read the electronic papers or the online offers on the screen, the work must be accessed over the internet, whereby protected data is stored in the working memory or other buffer memories of the client and under copyright law a reproduction is made. However, this transient storage does not allow use of the work to go beyond perception; it is rather part of the transmission of the work. It therefore has no independent economic significance, which is why it must be excluded from the author's right of reproduction (BÜHLER, loc. Cit., P. 166; see also the draft of a new Art. 24a CopA, according to which temporary reproductions of a work are permitted if they are transient or incidental, are an integral and essential part of a technological process, their sole purpose is to enable a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary or a lawful use and have no independent economic significance; <a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2006/3443.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Federal Gazette 2006 p. 3444</a>). [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this case, the source was once again a legal one. While I couldn't find a direct equivalent for end users copying from illegal sources, there are a few strong arguments:</p>
<ul>
<li><em>Swisscom</em> 2.3.2 acknowledges 24a applies to illegal sources at least with respect to internet service providers, though simultaneously not addressing the same question for end users since they were already covered by Article 19 in this case.</li>
<li>There is no provision against illegal sources so one should not be read in, similar to Article 19 interpretation in <em>Swisscom</em> 2.2.2.</li>
<li>Due to the strong technology-neutral interpretation of Swiss copyright law, we could make an analogy to analog sources. It's not generally illegal to view illegal analog sources, so similarly it shouldn't be illegal for digital sources despite the temporary technical copying involved, similar to <em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.4.1 &amp; 3.4.3.</li>
</ul>
<h1>Conclusion</h1>
<p>Putting it all together, here's all the use cases I covered along with the legal reason I've cited in this incredibly lengthy answer<sup>5</sup>:</p>
<ol>
<li>In all cases simply reading/browsing Sci-hub without making a permanent download is legal.
<ul>
<li><strong>Reason:</strong> Article 24a allows the temporary copies your browser makes and there is no provision as to legality of the source.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Downloading a book for personal use is legal.
<ul>
<li><strong>Reason:</strong> Article 19(1)(a) is basically a blanket copyright exception for any strictly personal use.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Downloading an article from a journal for school use is legal.
<ul>
<li><strong>Reason:</strong> Allowed by Article 19(1)(b), not restricted by 19(3)(a) due to a journal article being considered an excerpt of a work specimen according to <em>ETH Zürich</em>.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Downloading a book or individually offered article for school use from Sci-hub is illegal, a legal source would make this legal.
<ul>
<li><strong>Reason:</strong> Article 19(3)(a) restricts copying complete work specimens, though with a legal source Article 19(3<sup>bis</sup>) arguably lifts this restriction.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Downloading a book or article from Sci-hub for scientific research is illegal. If the source is legal, copying for technical reasons is legal.
<ul>
<li><strong>Reason:</strong> Article 24d is the only provision governing copying for scientific research purposes.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
<p>I emphasise these findings are not 100% certain, and many portions are yet to be fully tested in the courts.</p>
<h1>Further Reading</h1>
<p>If you can read French, I found <a href="https://www.unine.ch/files/live/sites/ccfi/files/M%C3%A9moires/M%C3%A9moire%20de%20Stephan%20Jauner.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stephan Jauner's Master's thesis</a> to be about the best overview of private use in Switzerland. Otherwise, I recommend <a href="https://ccdigitallaw.ch/index.php/english/copyright/5-how-may-other-people-use-work/52-private-use" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CCdigitallaw</a> available in English, French, German and Italian (though do note I've spotted a few awkward translations in English).</p>
<h1>Footnotes</h1>
<ol>
<li>(Official versions for reference: <a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz)">DE</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="French Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d’auteur)">FR</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/it/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Italian Copyright Act (Legge sul diritto d’autore)">IT</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/rm/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Romansh Copyright Act (Lescha davart ils dretgs d’autur)">RM</a>) <a href="https://www.unine.ch/files/live/sites/ccfi/files/M%C3%A9moires/M%C3%A9moire%20de%20Stephan%20Jauner.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stephan Jauner's Master's thesis</a> section 2.4 lists examples of what might be considered a valid &quot;school use.&quot; Additionally, he points out the translation issue of whether school use applies to the students in addition to the teacher, pointing out the French &amp; German do not say the same thing. I then ran the Italian through Google Translate and it appears to agree with the French. Unfortunately Google doesn't have Romansh available. Using the somewhat well-known technique of knowing one Romance language (French in my case) sort of lets you roughly read other Romance languages, I actually think the Romansh lines up with the German. He gives a citation that the French should be controlling because there's no good reason the students shouldn't also benefit from this copyright exception (to me it also seems somewhat impractical if this wasn't the case).</li>
<li>(Official versions for reference: <a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz)">DE</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="French Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d’auteur)">FR</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/it/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Italian Copyright Act (Legge sul diritto d’autore)">IT</a>/<a href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/rm/classified-compilation/19920251/index.html#a19" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Romansh Copyright Act (Lescha davart ils dretgs d’autur)">RM</a>) Despite looking like a similar word, the English <em>exemplar</em> seems to be a slight false friend and <em>specimen</em> is a more appropriate translation. None of the bilingual dictionaries I briefly consulted listed <em>exemplar</em> as possible. Also, despite the update to the French version in 2020, I still have doubts whether it says the same thing as the other versions since it uses the term <em>essentiel.</em> As a noun, it is usually used to designate the core part, though apparently it is possible to use it to designate most parts (see <a href="https://www.wordreference.com/fren/essentiel" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WordReference</a>), which would be consistent with the other language versions as best as I can tell.</li>
<li>The most helpful source I found, and the one which pointed out the translation issue is <a href="https://www.advocomplex.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/WE-medialex-02-11.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this paper by Dr. Willi Egloff</a> (DE). Other sources include <a href="https://ccdigitallaw.ch/index.php/english/copyright/5-how-may-other-people-use-work/52-private-use/525-counter-exceptions-copyright-limiting-provisions-exceptions-exceptions/5251-limitation-private-use" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CCdigitallaw</a> (EN linked, also available in DE/FR/IT), <a href="https://www.sic-online.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Sic-Online/2012/documents/161.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this paper in <em>sic!</em> by Vincent Salvadé</a> (FR), section 3.3.4.4 of <a href="https://www.unine.ch/files/live/sites/ccfi/files/M%C3%A9moires/M%C3%A9moire%20de%20Stephan%20Jauner.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this Master's thesis by Stephan Jauner</a> (FR) and directed by Salvadé, pages 165-167 of <a href="https://books.google.ca/books?id=KMzODwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this book by Willi Egloff et al.</a> (DE). All of these also have many inline citations should you choose to explore the rabbit hole.</li>
<li>As it's not directly applicable to the question here's a brief and less certain analysis of (1) the issue of 19(3<sup>bis</sup>) not absolving the third party of 19(3) restrictions, and (2) the court insising on legal access when private copy generally doesn't require it.
<ol>
<li>To my great frustration, the decision does not cite 19(3<sup>bis</sup>) at all and leaves us guessing a bit. Unfortunately I lost track of which source I read this in, but one explanation offered is that 19(3<sup>bis</sup>) only overrides 19(3) directly, but does not override the 19(2) provision binding third parties to 19(3) restrictions.</li>
<li><em>ETH Zürich</em> 3.4.2 states the third party requires lawful access without much explanation. Following the provided case citations, here's my best guess as to the reason. The third party requires lawful access since they are acting on behalf of a private user. The third party cannot make a copy of a work that the private user otherwise does not have access to. In this sense, a third party's unlawful access to a work does not equate to a work that the private user has access to. Nor can the private user give the third party access to a work since this does not constitute a personal use.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>I probably would not have attempted this answer if I knew ahead of time how complicated and time-consuming it would become. But, once I started down the research rabbit hole, I couldn't stop.</li>
</ol>

copyright switzerland