Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Det årlige opphavsrettskurset Sandefjord, 19. mars 2015 Copyright and links Prof. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Det årlige opphavsrettskurset Sandefjord, 19. mars 2015 Copyright and links Prof. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague."— Presentation transcript:

1 Det årlige opphavsrettskurset Sandefjord, 19. mars 2015 Copyright and links Prof. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague

2 Copyright

3 We know quite well what that is… ©

4 ‘Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.’ (para. 1) ‘Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.’ (para. 3) Art. 9 BC: reproduction

5 Arts. 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii), 14bis(1) BC Art. 8 WCT Right of communication to the public

6 ‘…the exclusive right of authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means…’ ‘…including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.’ Art. 8 WCT: communication to the public

7

8 Links

9 But do we know what this is?

10

11

12

13

14

15 Infringement? National precedents

16 publisher of ‘Handelsblatt’ and DM –invokes copyright to articles –offers articles on own internet platform –search engine for news on current topics –searches and indexes contents of several hundred news providers –search result contains deeplinks and short text fragments taken from articles BGH, 17 July 2003, case I ZR 259/00, ‘Paperboy’

17 ‘Ohne die Inanspruchnahme von Suchdiensten und deren Einsatz von Hyperlinks (gerade in der Form von Deep-Links) wäre die sinnvolle Nutzung der unübersehbaren Informationsfülle im World Wide Web praktisch ausgeschlossen.’ (p. 25) hyperlinking is essential to safeguarding freedom of information without hyperlinking no functioning internet

18 BGH, 17 July 2003, case I ZR 259/00, ‘Paperboy’ ‘Wer einen Hyperlink auf eine vom Berechtigten öffentlich zugänglich gemachte Webseite mit einem urheberrechtlich geschützten Werk setzt, begeht damit keine urheberrechtliche Nutzungshandlung, sondern verweist lediglich auf das Werk in einer Weise, die Nutzern den bereits eröffneten Zugang erleichtert.‘ (p. 20) only reference to material that has already been made available

19 BGH, 17 July 2003, case I ZR 259/00, ‘Paperboy’ ‘Nicht er, sondern derjenige, der das Werk in das Internet gestellt hat, entscheidet darüber, ob das Werk der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich bleibt. Wird die Webseite mit dem geschützten Werk nach dem Setzen des Hyperlinks gelöscht, geht dieser ins Leere.‘ (p. 20) no control over material no relevant act of making available reproduction carried out by users

20 Infringement? CJEU precedents

21

22 intervention by a different organisation global assessment of new public –hotel rooms, lobby etc. –fast succession of persons profit motive: contribution to hotel services =relevant act of secondary communication to the public CJEU, 7 December 2006, case C-306/05, SGAE/Rafael Hoteles

23

24 intervention by a different organisation but new public only de minimis –small number of persons –listening to different phonograms no direct profit motive ≠relevant act of secondary communication to the public CJEU, 15 March 2012, case C-135/10, SCF/Marco Del Corso

25 intervention = making the work available to a group without access public = indeterminate number of potential recipients Relevant factors profit motive not decisive, but can be taken into account

26 Finally: Svensson

27

28 Svensson and other journalists –wrote articles for Götenborgs-Posten –published in the newspaper and on freely available website –assert copyright against use of links Retriever –is a news aggregator –exploits a website with lists of links to articles on other websites, including Svensson’s articles CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12, Svensson

29 comparable with traditional hyperlinks mere reference no control act of secondary communication to the public other organisation broader public Available options

30 intervention? ‘In the circumstances of this case, it must be observed that the provision, on a website, of clickable links to protected works published without any access restrictions on another site, affords users of the first site direct access to those works.’ (para. 18) thus: relevant intervention, the work is made available first criterion is fulfilled CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12, Svensson

31 new public? ‘…where all the users of another site to whom the works at issue have been communicated by means of a clickable link could access those works directly on the site on which they were initially communicated, without the involvement of the manager of that other site, the users of the site managed by the latter must be deemed…’ CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12, Svensson

32 ‘…to be potential recipients of the initial communication and, therefore, as being part of the public taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication.’ (para. 27) thus: no new public, making available has no independent relevance second criterion not fulfilled CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12, Svensson

33 universal rule for all kinds of hyperlinks? ‘Such a finding cannot be called in question were the referring court to find, although this is not clear from the documents before the Court, that when Internet users click on the link at issue, the work appears in such a way as to give the impression that it is appearing on the site on which that link is found, whereas in fact that work comes from another site.’ (para. 29) CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12, Svensson

34 A closer look at the ‘new public’ criterion

35 ‘Thus, such a transmission is made to a public different from the public at which the original act of communication of the work is directed, that is, to a new public.’ (para. 40) unclear whether this is a subjective or rather objective criterion –subjective: intentions of copyright holder –objective: comparison of groups of recipients CJEU, 7 December 2006, case C-306/05, Rafael Hoteles

36 ‘…a new public, that is to say, a public which was not taken into account by the authors of the protected works within the framework of an authorisation given to another person.’ (para. 72) in this case: subjective criterion inquiry into intentions of the copyright holder seems decisive CJEU, 13 October 2011, cases C-431/09 and C-432/09, Airfield

37 ‘…a new public which was not considered by the authors concerned when they authorised the broadcast in question.’ (para. 38) again: subjective criterion inquiry into intentions of the copyright holder seems decisive CJEU, 7 March 2013, case C-607/11, TVCatchup

38 ‘…to be potential recipients of the initial communication and, therefore, as being part of the public taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication.’ (para. 27) assumption of intention to reach entire internet community still subjective? CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12, Svensson

39 from subjective: which public had the copyright holder in mind? to objective: Is there any difference between the initial and the hyperlink public? Important shift

40 illegal source not covered: which public had the copyright holder in mind? illegal source covered: Is there any difference between the initial and the hyperlink public? Why important?

41 Links to illegal content

42 BestWater makes advertising film. This film is illegally uploaded to YouTube. Competitors use framing to include the film in their website. CJEU, 21 October 2014, case C-348/13, BestWater

43 subjective or objective assessment of framed link to illegal content? ‘…für ein neues Publikum wiedergegeben wird, d. h. für ein Publikum, an das die Inhaber des Urheber- rechts nicht gedacht hatten, als sie die ursprüngliche öffentliche Wiedergabe erlaubten.’ (para. 14) subjective criterion as a starting point but no discussion of illegal publication on YouTube CJEU, 21 October 2014, case C-348/13, BestWater

44 unclear why the Court assumes permission ‘Denn sofern und soweit dieses Werk auf der Website, auf die der Internetlink verweist, frei zugänglich ist, ist davon auszugehen, dass die Inhaber des Urheberrechts, als sie diese Wiedergabe erlaubt haben, an alle Internetnutzer als Publikum gedacht haben.’ (para. 18) missed opportunity to clarify the issue of links to illegal content CJEU, 21 October 2014, case C-348/13, BestWater

45 Pending cases

46 SE: C More Entertainment –case C-279/13 –decision expected on 26 March 2015 –new insights? NL: Geen Stijl Media –case before Dutch Supreme Court –prejudicial questions about to be asked –would concern hyperlinks to illegal content

47 Concluding remarks

48 copyright holder content aggregators consumers positive/negative impact on source website? general or specific content aggregator? impact on freedom of information? Complex phenomenon

49 one size fits all? Complex phenomenon

50 copyright intervention by different organisation new public profit motive unfair competition law undermining another’s advertisement model taking unfair advantage (free riding) misleading consumers Copyright appropriate at all?

51 The end. Thank you! contact:


Download ppt "Det årlige opphavsrettskurset Sandefjord, 19. mars 2015 Copyright and links Prof. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The Hague."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google