Resultados 1 a 5 de 5
  1. #1
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,043

    EU court backs Playboy in hyperlinks copyright case

    Europe's top court rules linking can infringe copyright if done for profit.

    The Dutch website Geenstijl, operated by GS Media, had posted links to an Australian site that was hosting photographs from Playboy.

    But the court ruled GS Media had broken copyright rules, in part because it was motivated by profit.

    GS Media said this was a blow to the "free internet".

    Playboy's publisher, Sanoma, first brought the case against GS Media over links to photos of Dutch TV personality Britt Dekker, in 2011.

    In April 2016, EU advocate general Melchior Wathelet sided with GS Media, arguing in his legal opinion to the court that posting the hyperlinks did not constitute copyright infringement.

    But now the court has ruled that GS Media's posting of the links was a "communication to the public" - making it subject to the stated checks and balances regarding copyright.

    It said the internet was "of particular importance to freedom of expression and of information and that hyperlinks contribute to its sound operation" - but added that certain parties had a greater responsibility to avoid posting links to illegally published content.

    "[W]hen hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published," it said.

    In a statement on its website, Geenstijl said that not being able to hyperlink in a "free and unsolicited way" would make it harder for websites to report on newsworthy events.

    It added that it would continue to "fight on for freedom" over the matter.

    GS Media's lawyer also released a statement.

    "While private individuals who unwittingly link to infringing content may be safe from copyright claims, the decision poses problems for all online media organisations in Europe," wrote Remy Chavannes.

    "They will be expected to ascertain the copyright status of all information to which they link, which will often be impossible.

    "If a news story is based on information that has leaked online, they may not be able to link to the source without risking a copyright claim. Copyright was never intended to censor news reporting.

    "The mere uncertainty about potential infringement claims will encourage both media outlets and individuals to refrain from linking, leading to less verifiable journalism and a less open internet."
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37312677

  2. #2
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,043
    The decision will have serious ramifications particularly to media outlets, as well as and many other for-profit website operators and internet search engines that provide links to other websites as part of their business.

    By Bill Donahue

    Law360, New York (September 8, 2016, 12:20 PM ET) -- Playboy won a ruling from the European​ Union’s top appeals court Thursday blocking a Dutch website from linking to images posted without the magazine’s permission, a decision that could have a major impact on websites and internet users throughout the bloc.
    Weighing in on the long-contentious question of whether linking to copyright​-​infringing material is itself illegal, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that for-profit websites that link to unauthorized material will themselves be violating European copyright law.

    The ruling is a win for Playboy’s Dutch publisher, Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, which had sued to block the operators of popular Dutch blog GeenStijl from linking to copies of the magazine’s images posted illegally by a third party, as well as for other copyright owners seeking an easier way to shut down the spread of pirated material.

    “It is undisputed that [GeenStijl] provided the hyperlinks to the files containing the photos for profit and that Sanoma had not authoriz​ed the publication of those photos on the internet,” the court wrote in a summary of its ruling.

    The ruling that linking itself amounts to infringement could have far-reaching effects on the way the internet functions in the European Union, experts say.

    “This is a very surprising decision,” said Ron Moscona, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney's London office. “The decision will have serious ramifications particularly to media outlets, as well as and many other for-profit website operators and internet search engines that provide links to other websites as part of their business.”

    Sanoma sued GeenStijl in 2011 for posting links to an Australian website that had published unauthorized copies of photos of model Britt Dekker, which were set to be published in the December 2011 issue of Playboy. The case went through a Dutch lower court and the country’s Supreme Court before being referred to the CJEU last year.

    Under EU law, the “communication to the public” of copyrighted material without permission is illegal, but whether or not the mere linking to material that had already been publicly posted by third-parties amounts to such a “communication” has been a contentious, unresolved issue.

    In Thursday’s ruling, the court crafted a two-track answer to that question, ​with the stated aim of trying to “maintain a fair balance” between the rights of copyright owners and the “freedom of expression and of information.”

    Linking to infringing material by an ordinary internet user, who wasn't seeking a profit and didn't know that the material was infringing, the court wrote, does not meet the threshold for an illegal “communication.”

    But linking to unauthorized works by a for-profit company, the court said, must be presumed to be knowing; and if the company can’t rebut that presumption, then the link itself is a violation of the law.

    “When hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published,” the court wrote. “Therefore, it must be presumed that that posting has been done with the full knowledge of the protected nature of the work and of the possible lack of the copyright holder’s consent to publication on the internet.”

    “In such circumstances, and in so far as that presumption is not rebutted, the act of posting a clickable link to a work illegally published on the internet constitutes a ‘communication to the public,’” the court wrote.

    According to experts, the court’s split ruling was something of a hedge —​ an attempt to address the concerns of both copyright owners, who say they need help battling a flood of online infringement, as well as consumer advocates and free speech critics, who say linking is integral to the free​ ​flow of information on the internet.

    Whether that attempt at judicial pragmatism will succeed is an open question.

    “It remains highly controversial whether linking should be ever regarded as a communication to the public,” said Graham Smith, a partner at the London office of Bird & Bird.

    “Many will think that the lawfulness of linking is better addressed outside the framework of primary copyright infringement, for instance as a matter of unfair competition or secondary liability, rather than seeking through caselaw to mold the exclusive right of communication to the public to meet a particular case,” Smith said.

    One thing is for sure, though: Thursday’s ruling will require far more caution from most websites, which will now be presumed to have known what they were doing if they post links to infringing third-party sites.

    And, according to some experts, that could even have a trickle-down effect on the normal web users that the court was trying to avoid.

    “If providing hyperlinks risks infringing a third​-​party copyright on the grounds of ‘deemed knowledge,’ many website operators would prefer to sharply cut down on the use of hyperlinks on their sites in order to limit the risk of infringement,” Dorsey’s Moscona said. “It is difficult to imagine a worse attack on the free flow of information through the internet.”

    --Editing by Rebecca Flanagan.
    https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/8...-illegal-links

  3. #3
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,043

    Acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça (em Português)


  4. #4
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,043

    Press release

    The posting of a hyperlink on a website to works protected by copyright and published without the author’s consent on another website does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ when the person who posts that link does not seek financial gain and acts without knowledge that those works have been published illegally

    In contrast, if those hyperlinks are provided for profit, knowledge of the illegality of the publication on the other website must be presumed.

    ...

    http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...cp160092en.pdf

  5. #5
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,043
    Ficou interessante a situação do PirateBay. Sites da EU de pesquisa de torrents, mp3, etc e "fileshare" vão levar um calor.
    Última edição por 5ms; 10-09-2016 às 15:37.

Permissões de Postagem

  • Você não pode iniciar novos tópicos
  • Você não pode enviar respostas
  • Você não pode enviar anexos
  • Você não pode editar suas mensagens
  •