The right of communication to the public ... in a chart

Right of communication
to the public?!
The right of communication to the public under Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive has been subject to several (nearly 20) references for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Over time, this exclusive right has become increasingly complex, and yet absolutely topical to online exploitation of works and enforcement of relevant copyrights.

Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive does not define the concept of ‘communication to the public’. This provision, in fact, only states that EU “Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit 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 them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.” 

Lacking a definition of the notion of ‘communication to the public’, the CJEU has sought to determine the meaning and scope of this concept in light of the objectives pursued by the InfoSoc Directive, notably to ensure a high level of protection of intellectual property (Recital 24) and for authors. 

In its rich body of case law on Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive, the CJEU has consistently stated that the essential requirements of Article 3(1) are an ‘act of communication’, directed to a ‘public’. In addition, the CJEU has also highlighted the importance of considering additional criteria which are not autonomous and are interdependent, and may – in different situations – be present to widely varying degrees. Such criteria must be applied both individually and in their interaction with one another.

So, what questions should you ask yourself when addressing communication to the public issues?

As part of my student materials [see here] and inspired by mandatory summer reading, ie magazines and their relevant quizzes, I have created a little - simplified - chart on the right of communication to the public post-Ziggo [C-610/15, also known as The Pirate Bay case]. 

If you are interested in a more extensive discussion of the requirements under Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive, see this recent paper of mine here [presented here].

The chart can be also downloaded in PDF here.

Any feedback and comments are very welcome!
[Originally published on The IPKat on 24 July 2017]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AG Szpunar advises CJEU not to extend direct liability for trade mark infringement to operators of online marketplaces

Image
Is the operator of an online marketplace (more specifically: a hybrid marketplace, which also provides logistics assistance to third-party sellers through a fulfilment programme) using third-party trade marks itself, in accordance with Article 9(2)   EUTMR , when it displays, on its marketplace, advertisements of independent sellers’ goods that infringe such trade mark rights, which it also delivers to end customers? Is the perception of a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant internet user relevant when undertaking such an assessment? Gigi was also awaiting her delivery ... These are the key issues on which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been requested to provide guidance.  Joined cases  Louboutin/Amazon , C-148/21 and C-184/21  are referrals for a preliminary ruling made in the context of highly similar proceedings pending before, respectively, Luxembourg’s Tribunal d’arrondissement (C-148/21) and Belgium’s Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Br
Read more

The Louboutin/Amazon cases (C-148/21 and C-184/21) and primary liability under EU trade mark law

Image
Merpel will be also spending the weekend shopping for (stiletto heel) shoes   Last year The IPKat   reported   on a new referral to the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) from Luxembourg’s Tribunal d’arrondissement, asking whether the operator of a hybrid marketplace could be considered directly liable for trade mark infringement due to the presence of third-party listings of infringing goods on its platform. That referral ( C-148/21 ) has now been joined to another one ( C-184/21 ) made in separate but highly similar proceedings pending between the same parties (Louboutin and Amazon) before the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles. In a nutshell, these joined cases are asking the CJEU to determine whether and, if so, at what conditions the operator of an online marketplace may be found liable under Article 9(2) of the  EU Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001  (EUTMR) for the display of advertisements and the delivery of infringing goods that are offered for sale and pla
Read more

Image rights and the unauthorized use of one's own portrait on cigarette packs

Image
Plescia's image and the warning that "Smoking causes strokes and disability" Can someone's own image be used without permission? This question may have different answers, depending on both the context in which the relevant image is used and the legal system considered. With particular regard to the latter, in countries that envisage 'image rights' (or publicity rights), the availability of protection may be even irrespective of the context in which one's own image is being used. Italian law This is for instance the case of Italy which, similarly to other continental European jurisdictions, has a long-standing history of protecting image rights.  The relevant provision in the Italian Civil Code, ie  Article 10 , states that if one's own image is displayed or published outside the cases in which the display or publication is allowed by law, or in situations which are prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the person, a court may
Read more