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 publisher of Handelsblatt and DM invokes copyright to articles offers articles on own internet platformsearch 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) wre die sinnvolle Nutzung der unbersehbaren Informationsflle 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 ffentlich zugnglich gemachte Webseite mit einem urheberrechtlich geschtzten Werk setzt, begeht damit keine urheberrechtliche Nutzungshandlung, sondern verweist lediglich auf das Werk in einer Weise, die Nutzern den bereits erffneten 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 darber, ob das Werk der ffentlichkeit zugnglich bleibt. Wird die Webseite mit dem geschtzten Werk nach dem Setzen des Hyperlinks gelscht, geht dieser ins Leere. (p. 20) no control over material no relevant act of making available reproduction carried out by users Infringement? CJEU: Svensson Svensson and other journalists wrote articles for Gtenborgs-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 Svenssons articles CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12, Svensson comparable with traditional hyperlinks mere reference no control act of secondary communication to the public other organisation broader public Available options 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) CJEU, 13 February 2014, case C-466/12, Svensson A closer look at the new public criterion 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 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 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 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 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 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? Links to illegal content 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? fr ein neues Publikum wiedergegeben wird, d. h. fr ein Publikum, an das die Inhaber des Urheber- rechts nicht gedacht hatten, als sie die ursprngliche ffentliche 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 zugnglich 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 Pending case: HR: Geen Stijl Media Critical Remarks copyright holder content aggregators consumers positive/negative impact on source website? general or specific content aggregator? impact on freedom of information? Complex phenomenon copyright intervention by different organisation new public profit motive unfair competition law undermining anothers advertisement model taking unfair advantage (free riding) misleading consumers Copyright appropriate at all? 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 retrans- mission 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: