|The European Court of Justice has just explained when hyperlinking to infringing works is a “communication to the public” and constitutes copyright infringement. In short words, users posting links to content they don’t know is infringing in a non-commercial environment are not guilty, while those doing so during the course of business are in trouble.
The court considered a case dating back to 2011, when a Dutch blog GeenStijl.nl published an article linking to leaked Playboy photos stored on FileFactory. Playboy publisher Sanoma managed to have the photos removed from FileFactory after filing a request with the platform. But the blog found other sources for the photos and linked to them instead.
The case went to the European Court of Justice, which has just handed down its decision that didn’t favor those operating in a commercial environment, while potentially giving a little more flexibility to the general public. The Court explained that a range of criteria need to be addressed in determining a “communication to the public”, including deliberate posting of links to copyrighted content and whether the communication resulted in profit-making. Eventually, the Court found that knowledge of the infringing status of the content combined with commercial motivation meant that a “communication to the public” has taken place.
In other words, the court believes that a person, who does not pursue a profit and does not know that the content work had been published without the consent of the copyright holder, is out of trouble. At the same time, when a person already has knowledge of potential infringement and is motivated by profit, the provision of a link constitutes a “communication to the public” and is punishable by law. Therefore, the Court advised those posting links for profit to carry out the “checks necessary” to ensure they link to legitimate content.
In the framework of the case, this court ruling is bad news for the Dutch blog, which posted the links for commercial purposes even after being informed by Playboy that the content was infringing. In response, the company claimed that such court decision was bad for the freedom of the press.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article.
Saturday, September 10th, 2016
|Sharing for peeps not for profit. Unleash the hounds|
|posted by (2016-09-11 05:35:53)|
|Who the hell knows what isn't copyrighted these days?||
Most Popular Stories