“For the ECJ, in the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation 44/2001, a harmful event may arise from the possibility of obtaining a reproduction of a work from an internet site accessible within the jurisdiction of the court seised.”
In its judgement Pinckney v. KDG Mediatech AG of 3 October 2013 (case C-170/12), the European Court of Justice answered a request for a preliminary ruling from French Supreme Court, concerning the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and recognition, which provides that “A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued (…) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts fo [...]
In February this year, the Czech Supreme Court ruled that a mere posting of an embedded link that links to copyright-protected material, must be regarded as a communication to the public and therewith as a direct copyright infringement. The Court was either unaware of pending cases in Luxembourg, or too impatient to wait for the CJEU. Paradoxically, whatever the response of CJEU in BestWater C-348/13 will be, the Czech court cannot be said to be wrong with regard to the direct infringement issue.
A few weeks ago, the Czech Constitutional Court (III. ÚS 1768/13) rejected a constitutional complaint of a young man, who was found guilty of copyright infringement by all court instances, includin [...]
In a judgement of 3 July 2013, the French Supreme Court clarifies the time limit for taking action to obtain damages for copyright infringement. Oddly enough, the French Intellectual Property Code provides that civil proceedings for infringement for designs and models (article L.521-3), patents (article L.615-8) and trade marks (article L.716-5) shall be barred after 3 years, but is silent about copyright and neighbouring rights actions.
In 1979, the singer of the song Just Because Of You, recorded to be synchron [...]
“The occasional use of an unusual expression – such as “she has a black belt in shopping, so uh …” to describe the shopping behavior of Endstra’s wife – is not enough to make a copyrighted work of an otherwise banal or trivial designed conversation.”
The 2008 decision of the Dutch Supreme Court in the Endstra-tapes case was, in the words of Professor Hugenholtz , “the most controversial decision of the decade. The case concerned the question whether the so called ‘backseat conversations,’ a series of conversations between the resale estate investor Willem Endstra and the Dutch police on [...]
In a short but very important judgement of 25 June 2013, the Cour de cassation, the French Supreme Court, has ruled that the sale of a computerized customer file is null and void if the French personal data authority CNIL has not been notified of the file in compliance with article 22 of the French personal data Act.
In the present case, a natural person brought a case against a company, claiming that the sale of a computerized customer file containing personal data had to be annulled, because the CNIL had not been notified of the file. To dismiss th [...]
“In this ruling, the French Supreme Court states that the mere updating of a computer program processing personal data does not entail an obligation for the data controller to notify the data processing a second time”.
Under article 22 of the French personal data Act, automatic processing of personal data must be notified to the French personal data authority CNIL. Article 22 indeed provides that automatic processing of personal data must be notified to the CNIL except when the processing requires the prior authorisation of the CNIL because it falls under the provisions of articles 25 (political, philosophical data, medical, sexual life data; genetic data; offences; exclusion from a righ [...]
“In essence, the disputes relate to the collecting societies’ intent to have intermediary suppliers pay levies on computers, printers and or plotters marketed in Germany. The suppliers, for their part, argued that some of the devices in question (namely printers and plotters) are incapable of autonomous copying.”
On June 27, 2013, the CJEU delivered its judgement in Joined Cases C‑457/11 to C‑460/11, VG Wort v Kyocera and others (VG Wort v Kyocera; see also the press pelease). This judgement was preceded by an Opinion by A.G. Sharpston (delivered on January 24, 2013) and comes in a particularly busy period for private copying and reprography levies, which has seen not only the publ [...]
“Before finalising its decision however, it is seeking the CJEU’s input on whether end users, who view web-pages on their computers without downloading or printing them, are committing infringements of copyright if they lack a licence from the rightholder.”
On 29 June 2013 the UK Supreme Court referred a series of questions in Case C-360/13 Public Relations Consultants Association Limited v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited and others, otherwise known as the Meltwater case, to the Court of Justice of the EU. The case examines whether Meltwater News, an electronic media monitoring service, was implicating its subscribers in copyright infringement by distributing reports that include [...]
In an interesting case about the portrait rights of the legendary Dutch football (soccer) player Johan Cruijff, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands recently ruled that a portrait right is not an exclusive right and that a commercial interest can make a difference, unless a reasonable remuneration has already been offered.
Johan Cruijff argued that the publication by the defendant, a Dutch publisher, of a photo book about the years that Cruijff played for Ajax Amsterdam, infringed his ‘right of [...]
“The BGH thus insinuates that framing may be a yet “unnamed right of exploitation” within the scope of Art. 15(2) Copyright Act.”
On 16th May 2013 the first Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), delivered its judgment in another case revolving around the issue of hyperlinking or framing. If one had hoped for a final decision to put the matter to rest, one could only be disappointed, since the BGH referred the case for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The reference to the ECJ concerns the question whether a website operator who embeds copyright protected videos in his website that is publicly available via another website (“framing”) infring [...]