CJEU on ”New Public”

Jan Rosen Professor of Private Law Stockholm University SWEDEN

Explosive expansion of CJEU’s Copyright decisions post 2004

C-302/02 (2004), British Horseracing C-306/05 (2005), Rafael Hotels C-456/06 (2006), Cassina C-275/06 (2008), Telefónica C-52/07 (2008), Kanal 5 Ltd & TV4 AB v STIM C-240/07 (2008), Sony Music C-304/07 (2008), Directmedia C-545/07 (2009), Lakorda C-5/08 (2009), Infopaq C-467/08 (2010), Padawan C-393/09 (2010), Datorprogram C-462/09 (2011), Thuiskopie C-403/08 & C-429/08 (2011), Premiere League C-70/10 ((2011), Scarlet Extended C-145/10 (2011), Standard Verlag C-431/09, 432/09 (2012) Airfield C-283/10 (2012) Circul Globus C-135/10 (2012) Marcel Del Corso C-162/10 (2012) Phonogramic Performance C-128/11 (2012) Oracle C-607/11 (2013) TVCatchup C-466/12 (2014) Svensson/Retriever C-348/13 (2014) Bestwater

C-466/12, Svensson et al. vs Retriever Sverige AB The Public Svensson et al.

Retriever Sverige AB www.retriever info.com

Retriever Norge A/S Database service GP Göteborgs Posten www.gp.se

• • • •

Articles openly available at www.retriever.se?

Retriever’s links pointed directly at copyright works published by GP on www.gp.se.

Such material was openly available for three weeks after first upload on

www.gp.se

For material older than three weeks access only for those with log in key (subscribers). For the relevant period of the case Retriever’s links were active relative works of Svensson et al. - material older than three weeks - and thus (no longer) openly/unrestrictedly available on the Internet.

ALAI Opinion on linking/communication 2013.09.16 www.alai.org

(i) the act of an individual person, directly or indirectly, (ii) with the distinct effect of addressing the public, irrespective of the tool, instrument or device that the individual has used to bring about that effect, and (iii) elements protected by copyright or material protected by related rights thus become available to the public in a way that is encompassed by the discrete rights granted under copyright

C-466/12, Svensson

(19) for there to be an ‘act of communication’, it is sufficient … that a work is made available to a public in such a way that the persons forming that public may access it, irrespective of whether they avail themselves of that opportunity (20) A provision of clickable links to protected works must be considered to be ‘making available’ and, therefore, an ‘act of communication’

C-466/12, Svensson & C-348/12, BestWater conclusions for linking measures

• • Communication to the public: enableing/providing effect of a measure is enough – no factual transmission necessary Technique neutrality; standard in line hyper links, frames, embedded measures – insignificant by what measure if the public is addressed

C-466/12, Svensson; New Public criterion (26) The public targeted by the initial communication consisted of all potential visitors to the site concerned … all Internet users could therefore have free access to them.

(27) … all the users of another site to whom the works at issue have been communicated by means of a clickable link … must be deemed to be

potential

communication.

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

C-466/12, Svensson; New Public criterion

(28) Therefore, since there is no new public, the authorisation of the copyright holders is not required for a communication to the public such as that in the main proceedings.

CJEU limits the scope of the New Public criterion in two ways:

1) the author has restricted the access to the website that initially makes available the work 2) no new public criterion applicable if the communication is made by different specific technical means

Restricted Access: limitation to the New Public criterion = A New Public addressed Svensson at (31): (i) a clickable link that makes it possible for users to circumvent restrictions put in place by the (initial) site on which the protected work appears (ii) the work is no longer available to the public on the site on which it was initially communicated, or (iii) where it is henceforth available on that site only to a restricted public while being accessible on another Internet site without authorisation of the copyright holders

Restricted access - pending issues post Svensson & BestWater

• • Linking to openly accessibel work on not authorised site (a pirate copy), though available openly/with consent on another site?

Effect of an express/declared restriction to link from an openly accessible and authorised site?

CJEU limiting the scope of the New Public criterion – ”different technical means”

C-607/11, TVCatchup, at para 26: use of a specific technical means different from that of

the original communication

C-466/12, Svensson, at (27): users of links to a work posted on the (open) Internet ”must be deemed to be potential recipients of the initial communication” = ”Internet” uses are all of the same technical means.

New Public criterion – an exhaustion, ”carve out”, of the communication to the public right -

ALAI Opinion

17.09.2014

• • • • •

ALAI

: the application of the "new public" criterion in the Svensson decision is contrary to: Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1) and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention Article 8 of the WCT Articles 2, 10, 14 and 15 of the WPPT Article 3 of the EU Information Society Directive previous CJEU decisions and interpretation rules of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

CJEU:s non-support of Svensson et al?

(25) In the circumstances of this case, it must be observed that making available the works concerned by means of a clickable link, such as that in the main proceedings, does not lead to the works in question being communicated to a new public.

What happened to Svensson et al.?

1. Closure of the case at the Swedish Appeal Court - Settlement between the parties (secret) 2. Retriever’s links pointed to works available at source website www.gp.se

Svensson judgement = New Public! , which allowed merely a restricted access of the nature demonstrated at para (31) 3. Authors/journalist very happy with the settlement!

Macro perspective of C-466/12, Svensson

• • • Has the CJEU a mandate to exhaust/limit basic exclusive rights of authors without explicit support from BC, WIPO Treaties & EU directives? What effect for national courts or member states if CJEU decision conflicts the acquis?

Is the CJEU’s balancing of interests, its perception of marketal needs, preserving an ”open” and accessible Internet, rational and adequate?