Linking after VG Bild-Kunst ... in a table

 A week ago, The IPKat reported and commented on the important decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in VG Bild-Kunst, C-392/19. 

In that judgment, the CJEU admitted the possibility for rightholders to restrict linking by contract, provided that any such restrictions are imposed and/or implemented through the adoption of effective technological measures, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (3) of the InfoSoc Directive.

According to the CJEU, this requirement - which, as I wrote, might raise questions of compatibility with the no formalities rule in the Berne Convention - is prompted by the need to "ensure legal certainty and the smooth functioning of the internet".

Readers may be aware that, over the past few years, I have developed IP and study aid materials (they can all be accessed here) primarily aimed at my students. Among them, there was a table - first published on The IPKat here - summarising the treatment of linking after the seminal CJEU decision in GS Media [Katposts here].

I have now updated that table so to include the findings in VG Bild-Kunst. To this end, I have added a column on contractual restrictions on linking. The table is obviously a simplified summary of CJEU decisions on linking, but hopefully will serve to give an introductory and easily understandable picture of what the law on linking is under EU copyright.

The new table, which is licensed under a CC-BY-NC Creative Commons licence, can be downloaded from here and is also reproduced below.

I hope that readers will find it useful. 




[Originally published on The IPKat on 16 March 2021] 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more

Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)

Image
Topazio, one of the soap operas produced by Delta TV Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive ? As readers with an interest in intermediary liability know, this is not a novel question: indeed, it has been already raised a number of times before national courts. A few weeks ago, in a  decision available on Marchi & Brevetti  (sentenza 7 April 2017 No 1928, RG 38113/2013,  Delta TV v Google and YouTube  – judge rapporteur: Guglielmo Rende), the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance) revisited this issue, and provided an interesting response. Readers might recall that this decision follows other interim rulings commented on this blog  here  and  here . Background Back in 2013 Delta TV, which produces and owns the copyright to a number of South-American soap operas (including audiovisual works for the Italian, Monaco, Swis...
Read more

Brands and online ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship?

Image
What has happened to online ecommerce platforms? Over the past few months news reports have multiplied – or, perhaps, their underlying issues have acquired greater visibility – that brand owners have been increasingly voicing criticisms against, sued, or discontinued sales on ecommerce sites. In particular, after the  criticisms  made against Alibaba, it seems that Amazon is now making the headlines. Let’s have a quick look at what has happened over the past few months. Court actions First, there have been legal proceedings being brought by trade mark owners, claiming a direct responsibility of Amazon in the sale of counterfeits or invoking a right to prevent sales on such platform. An example of the former is the  lawsuit  filed by Daimler against Amazon in late 2017 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The well-known  German car manufacturer argues that Amazon is directly responsible for the “ offer fo...
Read more