ENTER THE MATRIX

THE EFFECTS OF THE CJEUS CASE LAW

ON LINKING AND BEYOND
Dr. Pter Mezei, PhD
Associate Professor, Associate Dean for Strategic Affairs
University of Szeged, Faculty of Law (Hungary)
Adjunct Professor (dosentti), University of Turku (Finland)
Lecturer in Law, University of Toledo College of Law (USA)
Visiting Professor, Universit Jean Moulin Lyon III (France)

CITY UNIVERSITY LONDON LAW SCHOOL

RESEARCH SEMINARS

LONDON, FEBRUARY 3, 2016

BACKGROUND #1
Hyperlinks are the synapses connecting different parts of
the world wide web. Without hyperlinks, the web would be like
a library without a catalogue: full of information, but with no
sure means of finding it. (Matthew Collins)
Myth: A normal link is an incitement to copy the linked
document in a way which infringes copyright. This is a
serious misunderstanding. The ability to refer to a document
(or a person or any thing else) is in general a fundamental
right of free speech to the same extent that speech is free.
Making the reference with a hypertext link is more efficient but
changes nothing else. (Tim Berners-Lee)

BACKGROUND #2
Linking is a necessary means of online communication (hyperlinks,
deep links, embedding, framing, search engines, RSS feed, news
aggregators etc.);

Several illegal services are based on linking technologies (torrent

links, cyberlockers/direct download links);

Linking is generally public, however, users regularly communicate with

people in their private sphere where is the borderline between
private and (profit-oriented) public uses (f.e. social medias)?

Linking serves as a classic battlefield of intellectual property rights and

other fundamental rights/freedoms (freedom of expression, freedom to
access information etc.) How should we balance interests?

NEVER ENDING STORY (?)

Universal City Studios v. Shawn C. Reimerdes, 111 F.Supp.2d 294 (2000)
OLG Hamburg 22.2.2001 (3 U 247/00) - Roche Lexikon Medizin, GRUR 2001/9: p. 831-832.
BGH 17.7.2003 (I ZR 259/00) - Paperboy, GRUR 2003/11: p. 958-963.
Lesley A. Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (2003)
Sdu Apelacyjnego w Krakowie, z dnia 20 lipca 2004 r., I ACa 564/04.
Supreme Court of Norway 27.1.2005 - Napster.no, IIC 2006/1: p. 120-123.
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc., 416 F.Supp.2d (2006)
Coolstreaming and Calciolibero, Corte di Cassazione, 33945/06, 10 October 2006
OLG Celle 15.2.2007 (13 U 4/07) - Linksetzung als unerlaubte Handlung, MR 2007/9: p. 605.
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701 (2007)
OLG Jena 27.2.2008 (2 U 319/07) - Thumbnails & Google-Bildersuche, MIR online 2008/4
BGH 29.4.2010 (I ZR 69/08) - Vorschaubilder I, MR 2010/7: p. 475-482.
BGH 19.10.2011 (I ZR 140/10) - Vorschaubilder II, ZUM 2012/6: p. 477-482.
Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Another v GS Media BV, 507 119 HA ZA 11-2896, NL:RBAMS:2012:BX7043
Sdu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie, z dnia 7 maja 2014 r., I ACa 1663/13
Paramount Home Entertainment International Limited & Others v. British Sky Broadcasting Limited & Others [2014]
EWHC 937 (Ch)
BGH 08.07.2015 (I ZR 46/12) - Die Realitt II

ECJ CASE LAW MATRIX

C-More
Ent.

(C-403/08 &
C-429/08)

(C-306/05)

(C-279/13)

Best
Water

Svensson

GS
Media

FAPL

SGAE

(C-466/12)

TVCatchup
(C-607/11)

(C-348/13)

(C-160/15)

Stichting
Brein
(C-527/15)

Public
Relations
(C-360/13)

ACI Adam
(C-435/12)

WAYS OF SOLUTION #1
1. There is no relevant use of copyright:
a) bury your head in the sand: Flava Works, Inc., v.
Marques Rondale Gunter, 689 F.3d 754 (2012)

() performance by uploading, the

performance of a movie in a movie theater
might by analogy be said to begin not when
the audience is seated and the movie begins but
a bit earlier, when the operator of the projector
loads the film and puts his finger on the start
button; while on the second interpretation, performance by receiving, it begins
when he presses the button and the reel begins to unwind. (p. 760-761.)

WAYS OF SOLUTION #1
1. There is no relevant use of copyright:
a) bury your head in the sand: Flava Works, Inc., v.
Marques Rondale Gunter, 689 F.3d 754 (2012)

The second interpretationthe performance

occurs when the video is viewedis more
favorable to Flava, because myVidster plays a
role there and not in uploading. So we're
surprised that Flava doesn't urge it. The first
interpretation is hopeless for Flava. For there
is no evidence that myVidster is contributing to the
decision of someone to upload a Flava video to
the Internet, where it then becomes available to be bookmarked on myVidster's
website. myVidster is giving web surfers addresses where they can find
entertainment. By listing plays and giving the name and address of the theaters
where they are being performed, the New Yorker is not performing them. It is not
transmitting or communicating them. (p. 761.)

WAYS OF SOLUTION #1
1. There is no relevant use of copyright:
b) judge made law in the Svensson and BestWater
cases: does the application of the theory of new public
and the theory of different technological means of transmission lead to the
exhaustion of the right of making available to the public?

See Svensson: where all the users of another site to whom the works at
issue have been communicated by means of a clickable link could access
those works directly on the site on which they were initially communicated,
without the involvement of the manager of that other site, the users of the
site managed by the latter must be deemed to be potential recipients of the
initial communication and, therefore, as being part of the public taken into
account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial
communication. (Para. 27.)

WAYS OF SOLUTION #1
1. There is no relevant use of copyright:
b) judge made law: what about linking to contents
made available to the public illegally?
Order of the ECJ in BestWater: die Einbettung eines auf einer Website
ffentlich zugnglichen geschtzten Werkes in eine andere Website mittels
eines Links unter Verwendung der Framing-Technik () allein stellt keine
ffentliche Wiedergabe (), soweit das betreffende Werk weder fr ein
neues Publikum noch einem speziellen technischen Verfahren
wiedergegeben wird, das sich von demjenigen der ursprnglichen
Wiedergabe unterschiedet. (Para. 14.)

WAYS OF SOLUTION #1
1. There is no relevant use of copyright:
b) judge made law: what about linking to contents
made available to the public illegally?
BUT! Compare to High Courts decision from 2014:
the facts of Svensson could hardly be further removed from the facts of the
present case where () the operators who make them available to the
Target Websites are not authorised in any shape or form to do so. The case
is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on its facts. () Arnold J took the view
that the operators were intervening in a highly material way to make the
copyright works available to a new audience. I respectfully agree.
See: Paramount Home Entertainment v. British Sky Broadcasting [2014]
EWHC 937 (Ch) para. 31. & 35.

WAYS OF SOLUTION #1
1. There is no relevant use of copyright:
b) judge made law: what about linking to contents
made available to the public illegally?
BUT! Compare to BGHs final decision in BestWater
case (2015):
Die Revision rgt daher mit Erfolg, dass das Berufungsgericht keine
Feststellungen zur Behauptung der Klgerin getroffen hat, der Film sei nicht mit
ihrer Zustimmung auf der Videoplattform YouTube eingestellt und damit nicht
im Internet frei zugnglich gewesen, als die Beklagten ihn ber ihre Webseite im
Wege des Framing zugnglich gemacht haben. () Werden - wie im Streitfall auf einer Internetseite anklickbare Links zu Werken bereitgestellt, die auf einer
anderen Internetseite fr alle Internetnutzer frei zugnglich sind, fhrt dies nach
der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Europischen Union demnach nur
dann nicht zu einer Wiedergabe der fraglichen Werke fr ein neues Publikum,
wenn die Werke auf der anderen Internetseite mit Erlaubnis der
Urheberrechtsinhaber fr alle Internetnutzer frei zugnglich sind.
BGH 9.7.2015 (I ZR 46/12) - Die Realitt, para. 31. & 34.

WAYS OF SOLUTION #2
2. There is a relevant use of copyright, but it is immunized:
a) e-commerce safe harbour for linking? Compare to Austrias ecommerce law
b) theory of implied licence: case law confirms its viability + InfoSocDirective Recital (30): domestic law on contracts is not affected

c) doctrine of innocent infringer: Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47

[2011] 3 S.C.R. 269
d) limitation or exception for linking? Would it fit to three-step test?
Compare to high level of protection [InfoSoc-Directive Recitals (9)(11)] + paradox of private making available to the public;
the Reda-Report, as well as Commissioners Oettinger and Ansip did
not propose to introduce such solution.

WAYS OF SOLUTION #3
3. There is a relevant use of copyright and what?
a) do nothing: accept business realities and the digital age;

b) leave it to the Code, rather than the Norm;

c) focus solely on for-profit uses:
-

compare to Google Tax in Germany (Leistungsschutzrecht fr

Presseverlege) (2013);

Taina Pihlajarinne (2012):

-

Is the linking commercial in nature or is it without intention of

gaining economic advantage?
Is the service that is utilizing the linking based completely on
systematic linking or is the linking occasional in nature?
Is the linked material selected mainly by the service provider or the
user?

ENTER THE MATRIX?

THANKS FOR YOUR

ATTENTION!
MEZEI@JURIS.U-SZEGED.HU
HTTP://SSRN.COM/AUTHOR=1697918