Transcript 2016 - Critical Analysis Communication to the Public.ppt (3.935Mb)

Annual BVA-ABA Conference
Brussels, 15 January 2016
Communication to the Public:
A Critical Analysis
Prof. Martin Senftleben
VU University Amsterdam
Bird & Bird, The Hague
Current Challenges
Infringement?
BGH: Paperboy
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: 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 case:
HR: Geen Stijl Media
Critical Remarks
Complex phenomenon
• positive/negative impact on source website?
• general or specific content aggregator?
• impact on freedom of information?
content
aggregators
copyright
holder
consumers
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
Breathing space in international law
• Basic Proposal WIPO Internet Treaties
(WCT en WPPT):
‘It seems clear that, at the treaty level, the term
‘communication’ can be used as a bridging term to
ensure the international interoperability and mutual
recognition of exclusive rights that have been or
will be provided in national legislations using either
the term ‘transmission’ or the term
‘communication’.’
= right of communication to the public can be
implemented as right of ‘transmission’
Breathing space in the EU acquis
• Recital 23 Information Society Directive:
‘This Directive should harmonise further the author's
right of communication to the public. This right
should be understood in a broad sense covering all
communication to the public not present at the place
where the communication originates. This right
should cover any such transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless
means, including broadcasting. This right should not
cover any other acts.’
= no transmission, no exclusive right
CJEU offers unnecessary
WCT-plus protection
• hyperlinking = reference to content
• hyperlinking ≠ transmission of content
• thus: no obligation to apply copyright
• application in case of new public is optional
expansion of protection
• unfair competition law more flexible
– individual assessment case-by-case
– no prohibition of formalities
The end. Thank you!
contact: [email protected]