1                Background, facts and questions On 9 June 2016 the CJEU ruled on Case C-470/14 – EGEDA and Others (‘EGEDA’). This marks the tenth occasion on which the Court has ruled on the private copying exception or limitation in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC (the ‘InfoSoc Directive’) after Padawan, Stichting de Thuiskopie, Luksan, VG Wort,…

The question referred to the CJEU in the Austro-Mechana case (C-572/14) was whether a claim for payment of fair compensation for private copying, as per Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, can be considered to be a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict and, therefore, whether Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction in civil…

The appeal court held that the diffusion of broadcast works as ambient music, by means of playing radio broadcasts through several loudspeakers in a fruit shop open to the public, was a mere reception and not a reuse of the broadcast works and therefore it did not require the authorisation of the copyright holders. A…

When a new disruptive innovation comes around, the question always arises as to whether the current legal regimes can provide answers to all potential legal questions arising out of such new technologies and their business cases. The process for obtaining legal certainty may take some time, especially with regard to computer related technology: e.g., whilst…

On 16 March 2016 the CJEU’s Advocate General Szpunar handed down his Opinion in case C-484/14, Mc Fadden. The case concerns the liability of Tobias Mc Fadden, the owner of a business selling lighting and sound systems in Munich. Mr Mc Fadden operates a Wi-Fi hotspot on the business’ premises, deliberately left unprotected by a…

The English High Court found that an App which allows users to upload, share and view 8 second clips of cricket matches and other sporting events (on a near-live basis) infringed the copyright in the television broadcasts of those matches, and the films made during the course of the production of those broadcasts. England And…

The Supreme Court held that “uses in any other manner” as provided in Article 172a, para. 1 of the Criminal Code covers any possible use of a copyright protected work. It is not necessary to refer to additional statutory rules, because “uses in any other manner” as one of the forms of unauthorised use is…

On 2 February 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its first post-Delfi judgment on the liability of online service providers for the unlawful speech of others. Somewhat puzzlingly, the Court reached the opposite conclusion from that of last summer’s controversial Grand Chamber ruling, this time finding that a violation of Article 10…

The Swedish Supreme Court considered under what circumstances, and to what extent, a penalty payment can be imposed on a company that has been prohibited under penalty of a fine from selling an infringing product, where violations to that prohibition have been made by a third party. A full summary of this case has been…

In response to a reference from the Brussels Court of Appeal, the CJEU held that Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (the Infosoc Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a broadcasting organisation does not carry out an act of “communication to the public” when it transmits its programme-carrying signals exclusively to signal distributors without those…