Transcript No Slide Title

Det årlige opphavsrettskurset
Sandefjord, 19. mars 2015
Copyright and links
Prof. Martin Senftleben
VU University Amsterdam
Bird & Bird, The Hague
Copyright
We know quite well what that is…
Art. 9 BC: reproduction
‘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)
Right of communication to the public
Arts. 11(1)(ii),
11bis(1)(i) and (ii),
11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii),
14bis(1) BC
Art. 8 WCT
Art. 8 WCT: communication to the public
‘…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.’
Links
But do we know what this is?
Infringement?
National precedents
BGH, 17 July 2003, case I ZR 259/00,
‘Paperboy’
• publisher of ‘Handelsblatt’ and DM
– invokes copyright to articles
– offers articles on own internet platform
• www.paperboy.de
– 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’
‘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
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
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
Infringement?
CJEU precedents
CJEU, 7 December 2006, case C-306/05,
SGAE/Rafael Hoteles
• 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, 15 March 2012, case C-135/10,
SCF/Marco Del Corso
• 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
Relevant factors
intervention
= making the
work available to
a group without
access
public
= indeterminate
number of
potential
recipients
profit motive
not decisive, but can
be taken into account
Finally: Svensson
CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12,
Svensson
• 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
Available options
• comparable with
traditional
hyperlinks
• act of secondary
communication to
the public
• mere reference
• other organisation
• no control
• broader public
CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12,
Svensson
• 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
• 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
‘…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
• 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)
A closer look at the
‘new public’ criterion
CJEU, 7 December 2006, case C-306/05,
Rafael Hoteles
‘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, 13 October 2011, cases C-431/09 and
C-432/09, Airfield
‘…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, 7 March 2013, case C-607/11,
TVCatchup
‘…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, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12,
Svensson
‘…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?
Important shift
from subjective:
to objective:
which public had
the copyright
holder in mind?
Is there any difference
between the initial and
the hyperlink public?
Why important?
illegal source
not covered:
illegal source
covered:
which public had
the copyright
holder in mind?
Is there any difference
between the initial and
the hyperlink public?
Links to illegal content
CJEU, 21 October 2014, case C-348/13,
BestWater
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
• 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 Urheberrechts 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
• 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
Pending cases
Pending cases
• 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
Concluding remarks
Complex phenomenon
• positive/negative impact on source website?
• general or specific content aggregator?
• impact on freedom of information?
content
aggregators
copyright
holder
consumers
Complex phenomenon
one size
fits all?
Copyright appropriate at all?
• copyright
• intervention by different organisation
• new public
• profit motive
• unfair competition law
• undermining another’s advertisement model
• taking unfair advantage (free riding)
• misleading consumers
The end. Thank you!
contact: [email protected]