No Free-For-All - Is Posting a Freely Available Image Online Copyright Infringement?

Posting images online, whether it is on your own website or otherwise, is so easy these days and often feels quite harmless. The lack of effort and often consequence for the copying and sharing an image, even if protected by copyright, can lead to what feels like a dissemination near free-for-all on intellectual property on the Internet. With this in mind, where does one draw the line on what is allowed and what isn't, and how do we assert control over any unauthorised sharing, even if your content is freely available on different websites? The CJEU took on this question early this month, and handed down a decision that has prompted a great deal of discussion in the general public.

The case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff concerned a photograph taken by Mr Renckhoff. This picture was exclusively licenced to an online travel portal for use, and had no restrictions on the website where it was posted. In 2009 a school student in Waltrop (within the Nord Rhine-Westphalia region of Germany) used the image in their presentation, which was subsequently posted on the school's website. Mr Renckhoff subsequently sued the school district for copyright infringement for the posting of the image on the school's website.

Only one question was referred to the CJEU, which asked "…whether the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers the posting on one website of a photograph which has been previously published without restriction and with the consent of the copyright holder on another website".

As many will be aware, 'communication to the public' includes two cumulative criteria that need to be considered: (i) an act of communication; and (ii) the communication of that work to a 'public'.

The first criterion simply concerns an act where "…a work is made available to a public in such a way that the persons forming that public may access it, irrespective of whether or not they avail themselves of that opportunity". The Court swiftly determined that the posting of the work on the school's website did amount to 'an act of communication'.

The danger of copyright infringement made the creation of
school presentations all the more thrilling

In terms of the second criterion, a 'public' "…covers all potential users of the website on which the photograph is posted, that is an indeterminate and fairly large number recipients". Again, the Court quickly determined that the act had been a communication to a 'public' under this definition. However, the Court did note that for the act to be an infringing 'communication to the public' it needs to be done so to a 'new public', i.e. "…a public that was not already taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication to the public of their work".

Looking at the right to prevent the unauthorized communication of works, the Court saw that "…[s]uch a right of a preventive nature would be deprived of its effectiveness if it were to be held that the posting on one website of a work previously posted on another website with the consent of the copyright holder did not constitute a communication to a new public". The Directive, under Article 3(3), does not exhaust the rights held in works once they have been communicated to the public by the rightsholder or an authorized third-party.

Ultimately they concluded that the communication of a work in a separate website would amount to a communication to a new public under the Directive, as the publication of the work was only intended for the users of the authorized website, and no other third-party sites. Limitations on the copying or use of the particular work are irrelevant in this assessment.

The Court did, however, have to navigate the issues set by their earlier decision in Svensson and BestWater (discussed more here and here), which allowed for the sharing of links to content that was freely available, as the intended public for those works was, in essence, the entirety of the Internet.

The cases were distinguished as they related to hyperlinks, and not copies of available works. The former is required for the proper operation of the Internet, whereas works themselves would not contribute to this aim to the same extent. Hyperlinks can also be disabled by the removal of the website it links to; whereas once an image has been copied elsewhere its removal is much harder. The Court therefore clearly emphasised the preventative nature of their conclusion, rather than the imposition of arbitrary preclusions to the sharing of content (innocent or not).

In short, the Court concluded that "…the concept of ‘communication to the public’… must be interpreted as meaning that it covers the posting on one website of a photograph previously posted, without any restriction preventing it from being downloaded and with the consent of the copyright holder, on another website".

The decision is somewhat unsurprising, as the exhaustion of rights through the posting of any content on an authorized website would be devastating to many creating industries. The Court upheld the rightsholder's rights in their works, even if posted innocently on a school website. The case did briefly discuss exemptions relating to education and research, and one has to note that this was not a big part of the case and therefore not discussed at length. Any such use as in the case would most likely be fair use; the Court simply made sure that no rights were exhausted even if this were the case.

Walking the Online Plank - Advocate General Szpunar Sets the Scene for Blocking Infringing Websites

Peer-to-peer file sharing has had its enemies since its very beginning, especially when used for sharing either protected or non-protected works online. A particular offender in the former category is the infamous Pirate Bay website, which shares hyperlinks to files known as 'torrent' files, which contain metadata on the files, linking a variety of peers (i.e. file sharers) with others wishing to download said file, and deliver pieces of the file using the P2P protocol. The fight against the Pirate Bay as an intermediary has been going on for a very long time, and the matter has been winding its way through the EU courts as well. While the CJEU has yet to rule on the matter, Advocate General Szpunar handed down his opinion before the CJEU's determination on this long-standing matter.

The case of Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV concerned Stichting Brein, a Dutch organization that focusses on combatting the illegal exploitation of copyright protected works, and to protect the interests of rights holders. Ziggo BV and the other defendant, XS4ALL Internet BV, are Dutch internet service providers who largely control the Dutch market. Stichting Brein took the ISPs to court, applying to compel the ISPs block all internet access to the Pirate Bay under the Dutch transposition of Article 8 of the InfoSoc Directive.

What the CJEU had to answer were two questions that the Court summarized as follows: "… the referring court raises in reality the matter of the liability of operators of indexing sites of peer-to-peer networks for copyright infringements committed in the context of the use of those networks. Can those operators themselves be regarded as being the originators of those infringements, which would mean they are directly liable (first question)? Or, even if they are not directly liable, can an order be made blocking access to their websites, which, as I shall explain below, requires a form of indirect liability (second question)?"

The first aspect of the larger question is whether the provision of indexed metadata relating to P2P files through a search engine is a communication to the public. As has been firmly established, a communication to the public comprises of two criteria, in essence (1) an act of communication and (2) it is made to a public.

The Advocate General first set out the basics, where an 'act of communication' emphasises the essential role of the player originating the communication and the deliberate nature of their intervention (including full knowledge of the consequences of their actions), without which the customer would not have gained access to the work and therefore does. The nature of the communication is also important, with rights holders also being able to prevent the infringement even if the communication, at the choosing of the end-user, hasn't taken place yet.

A 'public' is one where the communication is intended for an indeterminate, but fairly large number of recipients; however, as was discussed in Svensson, the public has to be a new one, and the provision content to the entire internet would not necessarily amount to a 'new' public. Even If provided for the internet at large, you still have to consider the intention of the communicator and the public it wanted to reach during the communication.  If the communication is made without the authorization of the rights holder, it's clearly made to a new public they didn't consider, making the public a 'new' one for this purpose.

Online piracy is real and scary

The AG then moved onto the actual application of the above to P2P networks. In his view, a copyright protected work would be communicated to the public via a P2P network, as; firstly, the works are made available on the computers of the network users, so any other user can download them; Secondly, the amount of users in P2P networks and using the Pirate Bay clearly would be an undefined and significant number of persons; and lastly, as no consent was given by the rights holder to share the works on these systems or websites, the works have been distributed to  a 'new public', since "if the author of the work has not consented to it being shared on a peer-to-peer network, the users of that network constitute by definition a new public". While this amounts to a clear communication to the public, the AG had to still decide, in his opinion, who the works originated from (i.e. the users or the indexing website).

The role of the indexing websites was also deemed necessary by the AG, since "...[infringing] works would not be accessible and the operation of the network would not be possible or would at any rate be much more complex and its use less efficient" without them. He also highlighted the need for knowledge by the website operators, and specified that "...from the moment that operator has knowledge of the fact that making available took place in breach of copyright and does not take action to render access to the work in question impossible, its conduct may be regarded as being intended to allow, expressly, the continuation of the illegal making available of that work and, hence, as an intentional action". The website operators' intervention is therefore necessary and deliberate (at least in the instances as detailed above), meaning the operators would be jointly with the user making the works available and thus communicating them to the public.

The AG then moved onto the second question, discussing the need to block access to websites such as the Pirate Bay (albeit only in the instance should the CJEU disagree with his answer to the first question).

In his view, Article 8 presupposes a link between the infringement and the subject of the injunction, meaning the services of the intermediary are used to facilitate the infringement happening through the website in question. He concluded that, in the light of this dependant relationship, the intermediary has to prevent access to the site to protect itself from liability.

He also added that this would not, potentially at least, impinge on the users' fundamental rights. The blocking of websites like the Pirate Bay would be proportionate to the significance and seriousness of the copyright infringements committed on that site. The block would also not prevent legitimate uses of P2P technologies, or the finding of legally shared files online. The measures themselves, ultimately, will have to be "...proportionate to the significance and seriousness of the copyright infringements committed, which is a matter for the national court to determine".

The AG's opinion sets the scene for the CJEU, and clearly will envision the decision going the way of the rights holders. Admittedly, this would seem like the most logical solution to a complex and difficult problem to tackle; however, measures would indeed have to be proportionate and non-restricting to the public at large. This writer would envision a possible avalanche of blocking injunctions being pushed after a decision to the affirmative; however, an EU-wide block seems highly unlikely, as application has to be done on a national basis.

Source: IPKat

Link Away - CJEU Decides Hyperlinking to Images is Not Communication to the Public

After the Advocate General's opinion on the GS Media (discussed here) case some 5 months ago, many people in the IP sphere have awaited the ultimate decision of the CJEU with baited breath. While the Advocate General's opinion reflected a pragmatic, very liberal interpretation of the legislation, some seemed skeptical on whether the CJEU would follow his thoughts. After, what felt like a small eternity to this writer, the CJEU has released its judgment on the case yesterday.

The case of GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV dealt with pictures of Britt Dekker (a famous Dutch TV personality), commissioned by Sanoma Media for publication in Playboy magazine. Prior to their publication, the images were somehow acquired and posted by a user on the file-sharing service Filefactory; a link to which was subsequently sent to the website GeenStijl, which is operated by GS Media. GeenStijl shared a part of one of the images of their website, with an additional hyperlink to Filefactory where users could download the images onto their computers. Although vehemently demanded by Sanoma Media, GS Media refused to remove the link from the website, although the content itself was removed from Filefactory. Sanoma Media then took GS Media to court for copyright infringement, which ultimately ended in the CJEU.

The Court had to determine "...whether, and in what possible circumstances, the fact of posting, on a website, a hyperlink to protected works, freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29".

The context is important here too, as the images in question had not been published prior to their leaking to the website and then to GS Media, and their hyperlink makes the finding of the files a lot easier and they had, or ought to have had, the knowledge that the works' publication on that particular website was not authorized.

Following the judgment in Svensson (discussed more here), the concept of a 'communication to the public' under the Directive consists of two criteria, specifically  an 'act of communication' that was communicated to a 'public'. While the Court followed its earlier decisions on the nuances of what amounts to a communication to the public, the meat of the matter lie in the application of this in the current scenario.

As was decided in Svensson, posting hyperlinks on a website to works freely available on another website does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ (followed in the BestWater case). The Court did distinguish that, in both of the aforementioned cases, the content linked to was authorized by the copyright holder, i.e. the content was legally on the website that the hyperlink lead to (meaning there was no new public for the content) As further clarified by the Court: "...as soon as and as long as that work is freely available on the website to which the hyperlink allows access, it must be considered that, where the copyright holders of that work have consented to such a communication, they have included all internet users as the public". This clearly distinguishes this case from both Svensson and BestWater, as the content was not authorized and therefore, arguably, the communication happened to a 'new public'.

The Court refused to infer the above, and stated that, to protect the freedom of expression and the Internet as we know it, one cannot simply categorize all linking to unauthorized content as a communication to the public. They further saw that, in assessing whether a communication to the public in such a scenario, one has to consider "...when the posting of a hyperlink to a work freely available on another website is carried out by a person who, in so doing, does not pursue a profit, to take account of the fact that that person does not know and cannot reasonably know, that that work had been published on the internet without the consent of the copyright holder". What remains interesting is the potential liability of an unknowing sharer, who still makes a profit by doing so. Ultimately, this seems to just raise the bar for negligence (or a willful blind eye), but is a curious consideration made by the Court.

Hyperlink profiteers enjoying their unlawful gains for one last time

The judgment did not, however, give everyone a free pass: "In contrast, where it is established that such a person knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink he posted provides access to a work illegally placed on the internet, for example owing to the fact that he was notified thereof by the copyright holders, it is necessary to consider that the provision of that link constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)". This makes sense, and would offer a safe harbor for those who were notified of any infringing content, especially if it had been placed there without the express authorization of the rightsholding party. The Court also put the onus on checking the content on those who gained a profit from sharing hyperlinks to other websites: "...it can be expected that the person who posted such a link carries out the necessary checks to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published on the website to which those hyperlinks lead, so that it must be presumed that that posting has occurred with the full knowledge of the protected nature of that work and the possible lack of consent to publication on the internet by the copyright holder. In such circumstances, and in so far as that rebuttable presumption is not rebutted, the act of posting a hyperlink to a work which was illegally placed on the internet constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)". Knowledge, or presumed knowledge, is key here, and clearly the Court wants to curtail profiteers who would use this 'loophole' for their own benefit by sharing links to infringing, unauthorized content.

The Court then finally summarized their findings to the questions posed: "...the answer to the questions raised is that Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to protected works, which are freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed".

The decision is a very interesting one, and this writer had been waiting for it for some time. What seems surprising is the emphasis of financial gain, but it makes sense, as often those who do not pursue pure monetary gains will be more honestly ignorant to the content  they have shared than those who aim to profit from it (often knowing full well what they are sharing, as it is the source of their users).

Clear Enough? - CJEU Further Clarifies Communication to the Public

The CJEU does not seem to be able to make its mind up on the topic of what amounts to a 'communication to the public', as is perfectly illustrated by the recent decisions in Svensson, C More Entertainment, BestWater and the Advocate General's opinion prior to the decision in GS Media (the very decision so many are waiting for). This difficulty in establishing a firm position on this very important subject has created many headaches for IP practitioners, who, by now, are grasping for any concrete and consistent judgments to this effect. While we have to still wait on the CJEU tackling GS Media, there is potentially some respite in the air via a decision discussing, yet again, what a 'communication to the public' might entail.

The case of Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v GEMA dealt with the a rehabilitation center, Reha Training, which provides post-operative treatment to better rehabilitate those who needed it after their medical procedures. The center itself included two waiting rooms and a training room (similar to a gym), where, between June 2012 and June 2013, they showed television programs for the patients who used the facilities in their recovery in installed TVs in the rooms. No permission was requested from GEMA (a German collection society) to display the content for the patients. GEMA then took Reha Training to court, asserting that the display of the TV content amounted to a 'communication to the public' under the InfoSoc Directive.

The referring court essentially asked whether the broadcasting of TV programmes in a rehabilitation center constitutes a communication to the public under several provisions (including the above Directive).

The CJEU first observed that, as the question referred to dealt with two Directives that mention a 'communication to the public', the provision in the InfoSoc Directive applies without prejudice to the application of the Rental Right and Lending Right Directive (which, similarly, offers the exclusive right to the author to communicate to the public a work, though through a more monetary provision). Although the wordings in each of the above Directives differs somewhat from each other, the Court concluded that their interpretation should be the same in order to keep a unified and coherent legal standard. They further clarified this, establishing that "...the different nature of the rights protected under those directives cannot hide the fact that, according to the wording of those directives, those rights have the same trigger, namely the communication to the public of protected works". Arguably, the interpretation of what amounts to a 'communication to the public' should be clear across the board, and this writer would agree that, unless specifically needed, the interpretation should be the same irrespective of the context of a given directive.

The Court then moved onto discussing the actual interpretation of the phrase. As the Court stated, this involves the assessment of several criteria, and the phrase has to be interpreted broadly. The criteria that are looked at are whether there has been an 'act of communication', and if that has been done to a 'public'.

No, Chuck, you can't communicate what you want,
even with a megaphone

In putting things in simple terms, the Court stated, as established, that an 'act of communication' is "...any transmission of the protected works, irrespective of the technical means or process used", and that every such transmission, to be legal, has to be authorized by the author of that work. Following on, the transmission of the work, to be an infringement of the above rights, has to be communicated to a 'public', which is deemed as "...an indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons". The public cannot be a restricted, small subset of people, but 'persons in general'. The CJEU has also established that the communication has to happen to a 'new public', meaning people who the author did not take into account when they authorized the communication of the work (i.e. if the content is paywalled, any people who do not have access through said paywall would be, prima facie, a 'new public'). This also involves a clear and calculated part by the person communicating the work to the new public, where their intervention is essential for the user to receive that broadcast. Without the intervention and the clear 'targeting' by the communicator, there would be no communication to a public.

In the earlier decision in SCF v Marco Del Corso the Court discussed this type of communication in a similar context, holding that the broadcast of TV programming in a dentist's office is not a communication to the public, as the patients do not visit the office to primarily watch TV, which in turn does not increase the users of that particular practice (or its attractiveness to a new public).

The Court concluded that Reha Training had indeed communicated the works to a public, as, drawing an analogy to previous case law involving restaurants, spas and hotels "...the operators of... [the] establishment carry out an act of communication where they intentionally broadcast protected works to their clientele by intentionally distributing a signal by means of television or radio sets which they have installed in their establishment". The clientele would not be an insignificant number, and the intervention of the operator of the center is key for their enjoyment of those works, and were not in the contemplation of the original broadcaster as an audience for the works, making them a 'new' public. The communication of the works also makes the center more attractive to prospective clients, giving it a competitive advantage (and thus benefiting from the communication).

The case is a curious development, and further cements the CJEU's position on the concept of a 'new public', which has been somewhat rejected in the Advocate General's opinion in GS Media. As the decision in the case looms in the horizon, it will be interesting to see whether this decision has a big impact on it, and whether the mere provision of hyperlinks would be an intervention that is indispensable for the enjoyment of the works, especially considering the material is freely accessible online to begin with (rather than locked behind a paywall). This writer believes the CJEU will not deem the sharing of hyperlinks to be a communication to the public, but the Court's track record does show that there are no guarantees to this effect.

Source: IPKat

Links A-OK - Hyperlinking to Infringing Material Online is OK, Says AG Wathelet

Since the CJEU's decision in Svensson the fate of hyperlinking in a European context has been up in the air, especially when it comes to copyright infringing materials and directly linking to that content. This is an incredibly important issue, and one that might have ramifications beyond our wildest imaginations, leading to great issues to how the Internet operates in today's world. While the CJEU deliberates its decision in the matter, Advocate General Wathelet provided us with a preview on the potential swing of the CJEU's vote in an opinion that was awaited by many.

The case of GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV dealt with the sharing of images online, specifically linking to images that have been deemed to infringe copyright. Sanoma Media, the publisher of the famous magazine Playboy, had commissioned a photographer to take photos for the magazine of Britt Dekker, a Dutch TV personality. Prior to their publication in Playboy the photos were leaked, and found their way onto an Australian file data storing website Filefactory. These images were then published on the website of a Dutch tabloid magazine, GeenStijl, who linked directly to the photos' location on Filefactory (where they could be downloaded as a zip file). Despite Sanoma's demands to do so, GeenStijl refused to remove the link to the website, although they were eventually removed from Filefactory. After pursuing GS Media through the courts, GeenStijl repeatedly posted new links to the photos in subsequent articles about the litigation, and the matter eventually ended up for the CJEU to decide.

The questions referred to the CJEU essentially dealt with whether the sharing of a hyperlink on another website containing infringing materials would be a 'communication to the public' under the InfoSec Directive.

In his opinion, AG Wathelet summarized the first question asked from the court as "...whether Article 3(1) of [the] Directive... must be interpreted as meaning that the provision on a website of a hyperlink to another website operated by a third party, which is accessible to the general internet public and on which works protected by copyright are made available to the public, without the authorisation of the copyright holder constitutes an act of communication to the public". Additionally, the Advocate General had to give an opinion on whether this question would be impacted by knowledge on part of the sharing party as to the lack of consent to share the content, and whether the previous publication of the work (or lack thereof) is of any relevance.

What remained a point of contention in the case is the findings in both the Svensson and BestWater cases, which the Advocate General first addressed. What both of the cases ultimately boiled down to was that the provision of hyperlinks to works that are freely available would not amount to a 'communication to the public', and therefore escapes infringement. Authorization of the initial publication was never an issue (although not approved in BestWater), or seemed to affect both decisions according to his opinion.

Ultimately, the Advocate General looked at the two criteria set out to establish a communication to a public, meaning looking at whether there has been 'an act of communication', and that it has been done to a 'public' (or a new public, considering Svensson).

Some links can lead to unsavory results

In answering the first criterion, the Advocate General took the position that the provision of a hyperlink to another website containing infringing works would not be an act communication, explaining that: "Although it is true that hyperlinks posted on a website make it much easier to find other websites and protected works available on those websites and therefore afford users of the first site quicker, direct access to those works, I consider that hyperlinks which lead, even directly, to protected works do not ‘make available’ those works to a public where the works are already freely accessible on another website, but merely facilitate the finding of those works". The Advocate General therefore distinguishes between the provision of the materials, and the finding or accessing of those materials, even if they infringe or not. What seems important in his opinion is the initial provision of the works, and not their subsequent sharing even via hyperlinks. He further iterated this position through the decision in Football Association Premier League and Others, where the intervention of the materials (and their subsequent provision for the first time as infringing copies) was key, which a hyperlink would not do, as it does merely facilitate an already available work. He concluded that "...in order to establish an act of communication, the intervention of the ‘hyperlinker’ must be vital or indispensable in order to benefit from or enjoy works". In his opinion GS Media therefore did not communicate the works, as their intervention was not indispensable in order to access the infringing works. He also considered that, as the question was answered in the negative, the question of a lack of authorization (and knowledge thereof) was irrelevant, even through 'nefarious' intentions.

The Advocate General then considered the question of whether the act of communication was done to a 'public'. He outright rejected the applicability of the 'new public' consideration borne in Svensson, deeming it not applicable in this instance (and potentially in other instances as well as a result). This would only be applicable when the work has been authorized, and thus accessed illegally for the benefit of a new public (i.e. from behind a pay-wall). Even if it applied in the event of a lack of authorization, the above intervention considerations would still apply, negating the assessment as the hyperlink would not add to the potential public that already could access the materials. He concluded that question 2 would therefore be answered in the negative.

The Advocate General made general observations as to this issue and the Internet: "...aside from the fact that, in principle, the posting of the hyperlinks in the main proceedings does not, in my view, constitute a ‘communication to the public’... I consider that any other interpretation of that provision would significantly impair the functioning of the Internet and undermine one of the main objectives of [the] Directive... namely the development of the information society in Europe. Such an interpretation could also distort the ‘fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matter’". He further emphasized the necessity of hyperlinking for the functionality of the Internet, and the lack of ability of Internet users to check sources of materials and whether they were authorized or not. If the posting of hyperlinks were to infringe copyright, users would not post them as readily, which would impede the development of the worldwide web.

The opinion leaves the matter quite open, and departed from the CJEU's previous considerations in Svensson and BestWater. Whether the CJEU follow the Advocate General's opinion remains to be seen, but as he wisely raised in his opinion, hyperlinking is essential to how the Internet works, and a balance has to be struck between the provision of links, but the protection of intellectual property from those seeking to blatantly benefit or even undermine this privilege. This writer will await the CJEU's decision with great intrigue, and hopes they will follow along the lines of the Advocate General.

Source: IPKat 

Links Galore - Hyperlinking Faces Its Third Challenge

After the Svensson and BestWater decisions hyperlinking seemed to already be a matter, which has been dealt with extensively and thoroughly. Even so, a third decision loomed in the horizon, hopefully shedding the final bit of light needed into the question of hyperlinking and copyright infringement. After the Svensson decision the questions posed to the Court were reduced to all but one, leaving more significance to that final question and its potential impact on the issue.

The case in question was C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg, which dealt with the broadcasting of ice hockey games, which were supplied by C More for a nominal fee for those wishing to view the games live online as opposed to on TV. Linus Sandberg created links on a website to allow access to two ice hockey games without having to pay C More for the pleasure of doing so, allowing for users to watch paid-for content beyond their paywall protection; however C More quickly put a stop to this, and Mr. Sandberg only was able to post links to two games. He was also taken to court in Sweden over copyright infringement.

As said above only one question was referred to the ECJ: "May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of authors by enabling “communication to the public” to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(2) of [Directive 2001/29]?" The question, prima facie at least, clearly requires guidance on whether Member States can extend the coverage of what constitutes a 'communication to the public' beyond what is expressly provided in the Directive, namely the posting on hyperlinks to paid-for content such as hockey games.

In light of the Directive (namely Article 3) and its Preamble, the Court swiftly determined that Member States' rights in extending coverage could potentially cover the posting of hyperlinks to live, paid-for content. This, however, only applies to on-demand services, which the above service is not, as live broadcasts are not watched by individuals at a time that is convenient to them, but rather, at a strict prescribed time. The Court dismissed its applicability to the current situation, at least in light of Article 3, deeming Mr. Sandberg's actions not an infringement of the right of communication to the public via his hyperlinks.

Hyperlinks can be enticing...

With this in mind, the Court did not oust the possibility that Member States could extend the coverage of the provision beyond what has been expressly set out in the Directive. The aim of the Directive is to harmonize copyright within the EU, but does not, as was seen by the Court, "...prevent or remove any differences between the national legislations as regards the extent of the protection which the Member States may grant to the holders of the rights referred to in Article 3[] with regard to certain acts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are not expressly referred to in that provision".

Following their argument the Court saw that under Directive 2006/115 Member States had the ability to give more far-reaching protection in relation to copyright when it comes to broadcasts and communication to the public. Article 8 even includes content, which is restricted by payment, as well as wireless communication of such content, for example via the Internet.

The Court then summarized its judgment on the matter: "It follows that Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as not affecting the option open to the Member States, set out in Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115, read in conjunction with recital 16 to that directive to grant broadcasting organisations the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit acts of communication to the public of their transmissions provided that such protection does not undermine that of copyright... Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation extending the exclusive right of the broadcasting organisations referred to in Article 3(2)(d) as regards acts of communication to the public which broadcasts of sporting fixtures made live on internet, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, may constitute, provided that such an extension does not undermine the protection of copyright".

While the decision is by no means as influential, at least in this writer's opinion, as Svensson or BestWater, to an extent, it still sets a potentially influential precedent should Member States wish to enact more wider coverage in relation to the communication to the public right. It does still leave the question of hyperlinking in more doubt, as links to newspaper articles have been deemed to infringe copyright, when links to live broadcasts would not. What happens now after the myriad of hyperlinking decisions in Member States remains to be seen; however the law is begging for more correction in terms of national application.

Source: IPKat

Framed Questions - ECJ Takes on Content Framing

As social media has changed how we interact with one another, it also has profoundly changed the culture and environment where copyright (and other intellectual property rights) reside. Videos, pictures and other content can very easily go 'viral', especially through sharing via Facebook, Twitter and other websites, even sans the original source of the content. This aggressive sharing and consumption of content can clearly yield huge benefits, both monetary and other positive outcomes; however it presents a much darker side to the sharing of this content, more specifically the copying and distribution of infringing content. Whether it be re-hosting a video originally on YouTube, or copying and watermarking other people's popular images, the Internet is full of opportunistic people rearing and ready to cash in on the next 'viral' hit. Not all sharing is bad, and often websites can host content and rightfully attribute the content to its source, or just link directly to it - which presents a question: can you share copyrighted content, especially through what is called 'framing' (placing someone else's content within the confides of your own website, but not directly hosting the content), or are you infringing on the rights through linking to this content and placing in within your own website?

The case, which endeavored to answer this question, was BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes (judgment only available in German or French). BestWater International are a company in the business in making and selling water filtration systems, and in an effort to boost their sales, made a 2-minute promotional video and uploaded it to YouTube, undoubtedly attempting to reach the droves of water filtration enthusiasts using the site. Michael Mebes and his co-defendant Stefan Potsch are independent agents for BestWater's competitor, who embedded a video link to BestWater's promotional video on YouTube (which they themselves uploaded onto the service). BestWater subsequently sued the pair for copyright infringement, and the case finally culminated in the European Court of Justice late last year. In the absence of a judgment in English (which this writer was waiting for) the information conveyed in this post has been parsed from several sources; however hopefully represents an accurate reading of the case.

The question posed to the Court was simple: "Does the embedding, within one’s own website, of another person’s work made available to the public on a third-party website... constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, even where that other person’s work is not thereby communicated to a new public and the communication of the work does not use a specific technical means which differs from that of the original communication?" In a lot of ways the case is similar to one discussed on this very blog on an earlier note; Svensson v Retriever. Even so, Svensson merely discussed the distribution of content, which is freely available on another website, when BestWater's focus is on framing that content within your own site, arguably presenting it, in a roundabout way, as your own. 

One should always be careful when framing things

Thinking back to Svensson, the decision in the case established, quite firmly, that if a work is communicated to the public, and is freely available, distributing that content without actually making new copies of it, does not constitute a communication to a new public and infringe copyright. Unceremoniously the Court saw that "[t]he embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [Directive 2011/29/EC] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication". 

What is key in the BestWater decision, much like in Svensson, is the authorization of the party who communicates the original work to the public. If the content is beyond the reach of most Internet users, framing the content clearly infringes copyright; however, should the party provide the content for all Internet users (i.e. freely available through services like YouTube), it will not infringe copyright. Should a third-party, without the consent of the copyright holder, upload a video to YouTube, and then promptly frame it on their website, they will be infringing copyright within the meaning of BestWater and Directive 2001/29/EC.

The two decision reflect a clear need for change in attitudes of copyright holders when posting content online. Framing applies just as well to images and sound files as it does to video, potentially causing issues to those who are not careful in their communication of their copyrighted content. This writer, for one, believes this approach is correct, even with the hazards it potentially presents. Should you choose to share content with very little regard to its restrictions, you choose to share your content with more people that you might have intended to, and for users to be punished for your mistake seems highly inequitable. Nevertheless, individuals and companies should be more careful in their content sharing, especially when considering the openness of the Internet, and the potential benefits more open sharing can give you.

Source: IPKat

Ties to Free Content - European Court of Justice Rules on Hyperlinks

Hyperlinking is arguably one of the most important developments in the evolution of the Internet since being introduced by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989, creating what he would call the World Wide Web. Through this content within the newfangled Internet could be connected more fluidly than in its directory system prior to hyperlinking's integration. Arguably it has made the Internet better, easier to use, and more convenient. Although linking in its many forms has been an issue of some dispute in the legal world, one could have imagined it has mostly seen its heyday in the courts. In a rather interesting turn of events, a new case was recently decided by the European Court of Justice based on a case in Sweden, addressing this very topic earlier this year.

The case in question was Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB, concerning a number of Swedish journalists who regularly posted their journalistic content on the Göteborgs-Posten newspaper and on the Göteborgs-Posten website. The defendant in the case, Retriever, offered a service to its clients by gathering and sending them lists of articles on other websites in clickable link form. Although the articles in question were freely available on the newspaper's website for all to view the journalists argued that when the clients were provided the lists of articles, it was not clear to them that these links would lead to content on other websites; in other words, could be lead to believe Retriever provided them with this content. The journalists then sued Retriever for copyright infringement, arguing they had made use of their articles without prior authorization and sought compensation. The case was rejected by the Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsrätt) at first instance, and on appeal to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) deferred the question to the ECJ for further assistance.

What the journalists argued was that Retriever had illegally made their content available to the public under the Swedish Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (a copy in Swedish can be found here). The ECJ's concern was how this act would be interpreted under Directive 2001/29/EC, more specifically Article 3(1).

The questions posed to the ECJ were (1) whether the provision of a link to another by a third-party, without the authorization of the copyright holder, would constitute a communication to the public under the Directive; (2) would this assessment be affected if the content is freely available to all on the website to which the link refers to; (3) should a distinction be made between the link showcasing the content on its original website, or if the content is shown in such a way to create the impression that it is appearing on the actual website when it is not; and (4) can a Member State give more protection to copyright holders by enabling communication to the public to cover a wider range of acts than is provided under Article 3.

The Swedish courts are not the only Swedes potentially blocking things

Through previous considerations in ITV Broadcasting and Others the ECJ saw that, for there to be a communication to the public under Article 3(1), there has to be "... an ‘act of communication’ of a work and the communication of that work to a ‘public’". The assessment of whether there has been an act of communication has to be done broadly, and with respect to Article 3(1) more directly: "..it is sufficient, in particular, 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". Under the ECJ's judgment the mere provision of links to content would be an act of communication under the Directive, as the content is made readily available to a public through Retriever's service. Whether this communication is done to a public, the ECJ has deemed that "...by the term ‘public’, that provision refers to an indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons". Arguably Retrieve's service does offer content to a large, indeterminate number of people, and falls under the Article.

Although the ECJ saw that Retriever's service would therefore be under the definition of Article 3(1), the matter was not that straightforward. The communication has to be done to a 'new' public, one which the copyright holders would not have foreseen the content being communicated to when they authorized that content's communication. As the journalists' articles were already freely available potentially to every Internet user, it would not be possible for them to have not anticipated Retriever's users to not be able to access that content. As such, in the ECJ's decision, no authorization is required under Article 3(1), and Retriever would not infringe the journalists' rights in communicating their works. This would be the same even if the content is displayed as to imply its existence on the original website when it is not, as the content is still very much available to all. The ECJ did specify that should the content be made only available to subscribed users, and the service, such as Retriever's, would circumvent that pay-wall, it would clearly be beyond the anticipation of the copyright holders when authorizing the communication of their works.

The ECJ also rejected the potential of allowing Member States to widen their range of what can be seen as a communication to the public, as it would create uncertainty within the Union as to what would entail communication to the public if every Member State would have a varying degree of protection.

The Svensson decision was very important in how the Internet would function on a much larger scale, and had the potential to restrict its operation within the European Union. If hyperlinks were to have been deemed to infringe copyright in the event that they link to freely available content, it would be much harder for the end-user to find content relevant to their interests or new content altogether, as external links would infringe copyright and be a liability for third-parties. This writer for one is glad the decision allowed for the linking to outside content, as this very blog does so regularly, and would prefer not to be in hot water as a result.

Source: JDSupra